A. On March 2, 2013, the Plaintiff, who owned by the Defendant, leased the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as the monthly rent of KRW 130,000,000, and the period until March 14, 2015 (24 months) by setting the rental deposit of KRW 130,000,000, and the rental deposit of KRW 2404 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the foregoing rental deposit, and completed resident registration with delivery of the instant apartment, and began to reside therein. Since then, the lease contract was renewed once again, and its period was extended to March 14, 2017.

C. On October 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the absence of an intention to extend the lease term by telephone. On March 8, 2017, immediately before the lease term expires, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content verifying the above intent and served the Defendant with the content certification around that time.

On March 2017, the Plaintiff moved to a different place from the apartment of this case, and around that time, notified the Defendant of the entrance and password of the apartment of this case.

E. The defendant does not refund the above rental deposit to the plaintiff up to now.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 in the evidence, the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the facts of the determination on the cause of the claim, the instant apartment lease contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated on March 14, 2017, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a deposit deposit of KRW 130,000,00 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 16, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant apartment.

3. The defendant's assertion is required to restore the apartment complex of this case to its original state, since the plaintiff resided in the apartment complex of this case while destroying or damaging the kitchen.