2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 27, 2014, the Defendant leased the lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000,000 per month, the lease deposit of KRW 800,000,000 from January 20, 2015 to January 19, 2017 to C and E, and received the said lease deposit of KRW 20,00,000 from January 31, 2015 to March 31, 2015.

B. On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to the amount until C received KRW 90,000,000,000, out of the lease deposit claim against the Defendant, based on a lease agreement concluded between C and the Defendant, with the obligor and the Defendant, as the obligor and the Defendant, as the third obligor. The above collection order was served on the Defendant on February 22, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2 (including additional numbers), Eul Nos. 1, 2-1, and 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

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 refund the above deposit amount of KRW 20 million to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the lease guarantee amount under the above lease agreement reaches KRW 90 million. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion of the portion exceeding the above KRW 20 million is without merit.

B. As to this, the defendant asserted that he returned the remainder after deducting 1.6 million won equivalent to the unpaid rental fee and 1.5 million won equivalent to the damages due to damage in remote areas at the time of the termination of the above lease period, the defendant remitted the remainder to E on January 15, 2017 less the above aggregate of 1.75 million won (1.6 million won) from E on January 15, 2017, taking into account the whole purport of the arguments in the following items: