On August 1, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the deposit amount of KRW 50 million, and used the instant real estate as a factory upon delivery.

On July 16, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to extend the term of the instant lease agreement by January 31, 2019.

The Plaintiff transferred the factory to another place from the real estate of this case before the expiration of the extended lease term as above.

On January 31, 2019, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall return the instant real estate, the expiration of the due date of the extension of the term of the lease,” but the Defendant responded to the purport that “the Plaintiff shall not speak in advance and make it difficult for the Plaintiff to immediately return the deposit by making a Party A’s request.” The Plaintiff did not receive the instant real estate transfer on that day.

around February 2018, Defendant received the keys to the instant real estate through the real estate brokerage office near the instant real estate.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the judgment as to the cause of the claim as to the whole purport of the argument, and according to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the lease contract of this case terminated upon the expiration of the period, and that the plaintiff provided the defendant with the obligation to deliver the real estate of this case on January 31, 2019. As such, the defendant provided the plaintiff with the obligation to deliver the real estate of this case for a deposit of KRW 50 million from February 1, 2019 to April 30, 2019, as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to May 31, 2019.