A. On March 21, 2013, the owner D of the first floor A-107 reinforced concrete structure 131.54 square meters (hereinafter “the instant shopping mall before the instant subdivision”) of the commercial building located in Seoyang-dong, Seoyang-gu, Busan, an aggregate building, determined that the said commercial building was leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) to the Plaintiff on March 21, 2013, from March 23, 2013 to March 22, 2018, KRW 30 million for rental deposit, KRW 10 million for monthly rent, and KRW 10 million for rent (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”).

B. On March 28, 2013, the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on March 28, 2013 with respect to the commercial buildings prior to the instant division, in order to secure a deposit for lease under

C. On July 15, 2015, D divided the instant commercial buildings into the first floor A-107 square meters of reinforced concrete structure 65.79 square meters (hereinafter “instant 107 commercial buildings”) and the first floor A-107-1 square meters of reinforced concrete structure 65.75 square meters (hereinafter “instant 107-1 commercial buildings”). On July 20, 2015, D sold the instant commercial buildings to the Defendant on July 20, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The parties concerned asserted that the ownership of the instant commercial building equivalent to a half of the instant commercial building was transferred to the Defendant during the existence of the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant succeeded to the status of the lessor under the instant lease agreement within the scope of 1/2. Since the instant lease agreement was terminated by agreement around August 10, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to refund the amount of KRW 135 million, half of the balance of the lease deposit, to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant merely succeeded to the instant lease agreement, and there was no agreement with the Plaintiff to terminate the instant lease agreement, and there was no delegation of the authority to terminate the lease agreement to D.