A. On December 8, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease term of KRW 24 months from February 28, 2013 to February 27, 2015, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 90 million, and paid the Defendant KRW 90 million.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant by content-certified mail that the Plaintiff did not intend to renew the instant lease agreement and sought the return of the lease deposit. The notification reached the Defendant around that time.

C. After doing so, the Plaintiff applied for the order of lease registration on April 14, 2015, and completed the lease registration on the instant real estate on May 11, 2015 upon receipt of the order of lease registration as Seoul Eastern District Court 2015Kao26, and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant on May 12, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the lease contract of this case was terminated due to the expiration of the period, the defendant delivered the plaintiff the real estate of this case to the defendant 2015, which is the next day after the plaintiff delivered the real estate of this case to the defendant.

5. The obligor shall be liable to pay damages for delay from 13. to 1.0% of the full payment.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant alleged that the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his/her intent to refuse to renew the instant lease agreement by mail by content-proof, around January 20, 2015, as seen earlier. Since the Defendant received it around that time, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

C. According to the theory of the lawsuit, the Defendant is worth KRW 90 million for the lease deposit of this case to the Plaintiff.