1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the following Paragraph 2 to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parts to be stated additionally in the trial; and

(a) by means of insufficient evidence of conduct 11 of the fourth decision of the first instance court, the phrase “A 19-1 and 2” shall be added and the following shall be added on the 14th day following the second decision:

“(A) The Plaintiff asserted that he paid KRW 3 million to the Defendant on September 27, 2005 as the lease deposit, but according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 19-2, the Plaintiff merely transferred KRW 3 million to the Defendant on June 29, 2004, and it does not coincide with the time, and it is insufficient to recognize that KRW 5 million, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant, was paid as the increased portion of the lease deposit).”

(b) add “the results of fact-finding with regard to the Busan Bank of the first instance” to “the results of fact-finding with regard to the relevant Busan Bank of the first instance judgment” as evidence of the fifth instance judgment and add the following to the following following of the third instance judgment:

“The Plaintiff’s assertion that the KRW 15 million deposited to G as of May 14, 2013 is not the Defendant’s money, but the money remitted by H, a person satisfing the Plaintiff’s money, but not the Defendant’s money, does not have any other evidence to acknowledge it)”

(c)in addition to the statements “A18” due to insufficient evidence of not more than six (6) of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added on the 14th page:

“The Plaintiff entered into a contract under which the instant lease agreement was renewed on September 5, 201, under which the previous deposit amount was KRW 3 million, and KRW 1 million was renewed on the condition of increase in deposit and rent. As such, the Plaintiff did not receive a refund of KRW 3 million which was already paid after the renewal, the Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 3 million against the Plaintiff at least.