A. The plaintiff's assertion that on July 20, 1999, the plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 35 million to the 101st floor, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") owned by the defendant, and continued to reside in the above real estate, and delivered the real estate of this case to the defendant on April 24, 2008. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the remaining deposit amount of KRW 30 million after deducting the deposit amount of KRW 5 million paid on January 30, 2013.

B. The plaintiff's father D, who was the defendant's South-win, was aware that D had occupied the real estate of this case without permission, knowing that D would be redevelopment of the real estate of this case. Thus, the defendant's conclusion of a lease contract with the plaintiff was without permission, and there is no fact that the defendant received the deposit from the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking into account the following facts and circumstances revealed by taking into account whether to conclude a lease contract and to pay a deposit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 11 through 13, 16 through 18, and 22 (including paper numbers), Eul's testimony and the overall purport of oral proceedings (the above assertion is without merit as seen below, although the defendant alleged that Gap evidence No. 2 (the lease contract) was forged) was forged, it may be acknowledged that Eul entered into a lease contract with the defendant as to the real estate of this case in the name of the plaintiff around July 20, 199 and around August 19, 24, 199, by setting the lease contract amount of KRW 35 million and the term of lease from August 19, 199. Around that time, it may be confirmed that the plaintiff paid the defendant the deposit amount of KRW 35 million to the defendant, and as shown in the above, the testimony of witness F by the witness F is insufficient and there is no other evidence.

1 According to the results of fact-finding on the South-dong community service center of this court, the seal imprint affixed to the above lease contract differs from the seal imprint affixed by the defendant at the time. However, according to the evidence No. 5, it was written in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant.