A. From this point of view, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on April 26, 201 with respect to the commercial building on the first floor of the building located in the Cheongju-si, a considerable amount of Cheongju-si (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). On April 26, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the instant commercial building by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 14 million, and the lease period of KRW 2 years (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Since the expiration of the lease term, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to refuse to renew the lease to the Defendant from December 2014.

C. On January 31, 2016, the Plaintiff handed over the instant commercial building to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff did not pay the Defendant a total of KRW 1,12 million (1.4 million x 8 months) from June 2015 to January 2016.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the term, the defendant is obligated to recover the lessor's duty to the plaintiff as the duty of restitution, with the exception of the amount of KRW 88 million, excluding the amount of KRW 1.2 million, which the plaintiff deducted from the amount of KRW 1.2 million.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that, among KRW 100 million of the above lease deposit, KRW 50 million was received from the Defendant’s first-friendly deceased D, the deceased D’s co-inheritors should be jointly liable. Thus, even if the deceased D entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff before the instant lease agreement and received KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff as the lease deposit.

Even if the lease contract of this case is concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, the lease contract of this case is set at KRW 100 million. Thus, the defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit to the plaintiff if the lease contract of this case is terminated as the lessor of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above argument is justified.