1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the court's explanation of this case is to dismiss the "this judgment" of the first instance court No. 10, which is the "the first instance court's judgment", and it is identical to that of the first instance court's judgment, except for addition of the judgment in the next instance court's judgment, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. As examined in the above cited part of the judgment added, the Plaintiff transferred the apartment of this case to the Defendant on March 12, 2019, and the Defendant’s claim for the deduction of the cost of restoring the original state cannot be accepted, and the entries or images of the evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including the serial number) and No. 4 are insufficient to reverse the fact-finding or judgment in the relevant cited part.

In addition, the defendant's deposit is not a valid deposit for full repayment, and on a different premise, the defendant's claim that no damages for delay shall accrue from the day immediately following the date of deposit cannot be accepted. The defendant's assertion that it is reasonable to dispute about the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation even until the payment of deposit is made on different premise, since the plaintiff's reservation of objection during the lawsuit of this case and the plaintiff's withdrawal of deposit was reduced accordingly as a result of the plaintiff's reservation of objection and payment of deposit.

The Plaintiff asserted that (a) the reservation of an objection at the time of the withdrawal of deposit shall not be explicitly stated. While the Plaintiff continued to pay the deposit in this case while the lawsuit in this case is pending, the Plaintiff not only maintained the lawsuit in this case, but also had not yet been paid the principal when it was appropriated for the repayment of the damages for delay (see, e.g., the third page of the Plaintiff’s reference document as of October 15, 2019). In light of the foregoing, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff reserved an objection when the deposit is withdrawn (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da3784, Nov. 11, 1997)