A. The Plaintiff leased, from the Defendant, the Seoul Yangcheon-gu Seoul apartment 304 Dong 1102 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with a deposit of KRW 230,00,000, and the term of lease from November 25, 2013 to November 25, 2015.

(hereinafter “Lease of this case”). (b)

After that, while changing the lease term of this case to April 24, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the Defendant KRW 300,000 per month from September 24, 2016 to April 24, 2017, and the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff KRW 23,000,000 among the deposit money on February 18, 2017, and the remaining deposit amount of KRW 207,00,000 each on April 24, 2017.

C. At the time of the above agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to reimburse KRW 34,500,000, respectively, in a case where the Plaintiff could not deliver the instant apartment on April 24, 2017 at the expiration of the lease term, or the Defendant could not return the remaining deposit amount of KRW 207,00,000.

On April 24, 2017, the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant. Meanwhile, the Defendant returned KRW 23,000,000,000 on February 18, 2017, and KRW 200,000,000 on April 24, 2017, and KRW 6,700,000 on June 11, 2017, and KRW 229,70,000 on a deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 7 evidence, Eul 15, 17, and 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that, as the Defendant paid only part of KRW 207,00,000, which was agreed to return on April 24, 2017, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the penalty of KRW 34,450,000 (which appears to be erroneous in the amount of KRW 34,50,000), the balance of the deposit (=230,000,000 - KRW 229,70,000), total amount of KRW 34,750,000, and delay damages therefrom).

The defendant, as the plaintiff neglected to manage the apartment of this case, left KRW 7,00,00 on April 24, 2017 as repair expenses, and paid KRW 300,000 as repair expenses on June 11, 2017 and deducted the remaining KRW 6,70,000.