1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

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 following parts being cited or added. 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. Parts 4, 11, and 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which are used or added, shall delete the part “to remove the facilities of the instant store.”

If the first instance judgment No. 4, 19-21 of the first instance judgment states, “(it cannot be deemed that the Defendant actually occupies the instant store on the ground that the Defendant asserted part of the right to lease the instant store for the purpose of securing its premium).” (Inasmuch as the Defendant returned the key to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant agreement, as seen earlier, the Defendant did not remove part of the facilities of the instant store, or the Defendant asserted part of the right to lease the instant store in order to secure its premium, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant actually occupies the instant store).”

The part of the first instance judgment No. 6-9 of the first instance judgment, "(the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant cannot refund the lease deposit because it did not deliver the instant store, but the Defendant delivered the instant store to the Plaintiff around May 15, 2015, as seen earlier, so the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit)."

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that since the defendant not only did not deliver the store of this case but also did not perform his duty to restore the lease deposit, including the removal of the line installed in the fish containers or walls installed in the ceiling, the plaintiff cannot refund the lease deposit.

In the event that the lessee's nonperformance is minor part of the duty to restore, and the amount of compensation for such breach is also a minor amount, the lessee will restore it for that reason.