1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

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 part which is dismissed or additionally determined as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part to be determined by dismissal or addition; and

A. The Court of First Instance 6, No. 8, No. 5, No. 7, and No. 11, respectively, shall be the Seoul Central District Court.

B. On the 10th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the witness B shall be deemed as witness B of the court of first instance.

C. The following is added between 13, 19 and 20, respectively, of the judgment of the first instance.

(4) Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion of additional deduction (Around September 2, 2008, according to Article 14(1) of the Lease Agreement of September 2, 2008, the Defendant’s obligation to cancel the right to collateral security is in the simultaneous performance relationship with the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the deposit, and the Defendant still occupies the instant real estate and interferes with the Plaintiff’s profit and loss. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from breach of the contract or tort, and thus, should be deducted from the lease deposit.

On August 25, 2016, the plaintiff delivered the judgment of the court of first instance, and deposited the lease deposit of KRW 128,200,00 and damages for delay of KRW 132,309,425, total of KRW 4,109,425, and the fact that the defendant received it does not conflict between the parties, but the plaintiff disputes the lease deposit and damages for delay recognized in the court of first instance at the court of first instance. Thus, although the plaintiff provided the defendant with a debt equivalent to the above amount at his discretion, it cannot be deemed that the deposit was made because the defendant did not receive it, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received the above amount at his own discretion.