2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

On October 7, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 110 million and the term of the contract from October 31, 201 to October 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a down payment of KRW 10 million and the remainder of KRW 100 million on October 31, 201.

On the other hand, at the time of the instant lease agreement, the right to collateral security of KRW 186 million was already established in the new bank in the future of the new bank.

Since then, on April 29, 2013, the application of the new bank, which was the right to collateral security in the instant case, was initiated with the District Court D for the apartment in the instant case.

(hereinafter “instant voluntary auction procedure.” The Plaintiff was awarded the instant apartment in the instant voluntary auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer regarding the instant apartment on January 22, 2014 after having been awarded the instant apartment in KRW 215,110,000.

On January 22, 2014, the date of distribution of the above auction, the New Bank Co., Ltd., a mortgagee of the instant auction, received 148,407,408 won in the second order, and the Plaintiff, a lessee, received 62,964,247 won in the third order.

[Recognition] According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the facts of the judgment as to the grounds for the claim as a whole of the pleadings, the lease contract of this case was terminated on October 31, 2013, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 10 million of the lease deposit of the apartment of this case, barring special circumstances.

(The plaintiff did not separately claim damages for delay). The defendant's decision on the defendant's defense on the deduction amounting to KRW 62,964,247, which the plaintiff received as dividends in the auction procedure of this case, is argued to be deducted.