2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-fifth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On April 6, 2011, between C and D, the Plaintiff entered into a housing lease agreement between C and D on May 22, 2011 to May 21, 2013, the lease term of KRW 85,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 30,000, and management fee of KRW 20,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and resided in the instant building upon delivery of title F among the instant building.

B. G purchased the instant building on January 11, 2013 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on February 28, 2013.

C. The Defendant purchased the instant building on December 28, 2013 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on January 22, 2014.

D. The Plaintiff removed from F of the instant building on September 9, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion

1) After concluding the instant lease contract with C, etc. around March 201, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff: (a) concluded the instant lease contract with C, etc.; (b) around March 2013, to increase the rental deposit of KRW 10 million with G, the purchaser of the instant building, and (c) transferred KRW 6 million with the view to increasing the rental deposit; and (d) G demanded transfer of the building to G without concluding the lease contract. However, G demanded transfer of the building to the Plaintiff without concluding the renewal contract. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested the return of KRW 15,00,000,000 in total, including the amount of the down payment due to the breach of the re-contract, the amount of the down payment, the expenses for directors, and the expenses for the return of the existing rental deposit, and KRW 85,00,000,000. After that, the Defendant succeeded to the instant lease contract by taking over the instant building. Since the instant lease contract was terminated due to the expiration of the term

2) The Defendant’s succeeded lease contract is the instant lease contract that is set forth in KRW 85,00,000. The Defendant did not have concluded a new lease contract between the Plaintiff and G, and the Defendant is not liable for the relationship between the Plaintiff and G. Ultimately, the deposit for lease that the Defendant is liable to return to the Defendant is KRW 85,000. Of them, the deposit for lease that the Plaintiff is liable to return is KRW 18,210,000 for monthly rent and management expenses that the Plaintiff unpaid and KRW 18,210 for the amount of KRW 17 months [=5,000 for monthly rent and management expenses ( + KRW 30,000 for monthly management expenses + KRW 20,000 for the amount from January to May 2015) + 280,000 for 20,000 (monthly 250,000 + KRW 30,000 for management expenses).

B. Determination

1) The Defendant succeeded to the lessor’s status of the instant lease agreement, and the instant lease agreement was terminated, and the Plaintiff did not pay monthly taxes and management expenses for 79 months from January 2014 to July 2020, there is no dispute between the parties.

2) According to the above facts and the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the deposit deposit 81,050,000 won [the deposit 85,00,000 won - the sum of the rent and management fee for arrears - 3,950,000 won ( = 50,000 won X 79 months)] and the damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 12% per annum under the Civil Act from September 10, 2020 to December 23, 2020, which is the date following the plaintiff's eviction the date of this decision, to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation to pay from September 10, 202 to December 23, 2020, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

3) Furthermore, while the Plaintiff sought additional payment of KRW 15,00,000,000,000, which was transferred to G by the Plaintiff to the Defendant to G, the Plaintiff entered into a new lease agreement with respect to KRW 6 million received between the Plaintiff and G, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant succeeded to the lease agreement, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the expenses for directors’ and reimbursement. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

4) Meanwhile, from June 2015, the Defendant asserted the deduction of the amount equivalent to 2.50,000 won under the premise that the monthly tax of the instant lease agreement was increased to 30,000 won, but there is no evidence to prove that the monthly tax and management expenses of the instant lease have increased as alleged by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit (On the other hand, while the Defendant made simultaneous performance defense based on the Plaintiff’s duty to deliver the building during the pleading, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff left the building of this case, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit).

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.