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

A. On December 3, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with a deposit of KRW 100 million, KRW 300,000 per month, and the period from December 15, 2016 to December 14, 2018.

B. On December 21, 2018, the Defendant received the order of registration of the instant real estate under the Changwon District Court Decision 2018Kao68 (Seoul High Court Decision 2018Kao68).

According to the above decision on December 26, 2018, the Changwon District Court Kimhae registry Office received KRW 100 million, KRW 300,000,000 for the lease deposit, and the lease date on December 3, 2016, the lease date, December 15, 2016, the resident registration date, December 15, 2016, the date of possession commencement, December 15, 2016, the fixed date of Dec. 15, 2016, the registration of the house lease as the lessee was completed.

(hereinafter “Registration of Housing Lease”). 【Registration of Housing Lease of this case’s case’s ground for recognition】 Fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and purport of all pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) confirmed that the Defendant would terminate the contract and would return the deposit, and the registration of the instant housing lease was completed between them. On January 3, 2019, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 100 million with the Defendant as the Changwon District Court Decision 2019, Jan. 3, 2019. The Defendant was obligated to implement the procedure for registration cancellation of the instant housing lease registration, as it was returned the lease deposit, and the Defendant had a duty to implement the procedure for registration cancellation of the instant housing lease registration. 2) On the date following the expiration of the contract.

Although the defendant demanded the return of the deposit to the plaintiff, he did not receive the refund of the deposit on the date of directors.

Since the defendant is bound to be a director, the registration of the housing lease of this case is completed.

The plaintiff deposited but the "delivery of the real estate of this case" was carried out on the condition of receiving the deposit money, and the defendant refused to issue the certificate of delivery, which is also the deposit money.