A. On December 24, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement that leases the instant real estate to the Defendant and the instant real estate amounting to KRW 110 million, and the lease period from January 12, 2012 to January 11, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Upon termination of the instant lease agreement on April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a letter of commitment performance (hereinafter “the first letter of commitment performance”) with the following terms and conditions. Of KRW 750,000,000,000,000,000 for a boiler repair cost, and KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the remainder remaining after the advance payment of the boiler repair cost, among the tenants of the instant real estate, to the Defendant of the instant real estate, was made. (c) On April 23, 2014, the Plaintiff drafted a letter of commitment performance with the Defendant (hereinafter “the second letter of commitment performance”) with the following terms and conditions, and paid the Defendant KRW 11,00,000,000,000 on the same day.

Under the condition that the tenant of the instant real estate can cooperate well with the tenant at KRW 110,00,000,000 for the house deposit, and is paid in advance at the same time with the balance of the tenant, it shall be paid in advance, and the remaining balance of KRW 9,00,000 shall be paid at the same time as the balance of the new tenant.

Since then, as a new lease contract with a succeeding lessee has been concluded several times, the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant has occurred, and no new lease contract has been concluded for several years.

In the process, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was secured in the real estate with an excessive amount of time, and did not cooperate with the plaintiff to show the room. The plaintiff argued that the defendant did not cooperate with the defendant, and that the return of the deposit was not made.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, and Eul No. 1 through 1.