Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

A. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on September 30, 2016, setting the lease deposit amounting to KRW 160 million with respect to the Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu C Building D (hereinafter “instant real estate”), a housing owned by the Defendant, and the lease agreement between September 30, 2016 and September 29, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 160 million with the said lease deposit, and the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed around the expiration of the said lease term, and it is recognized that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on August 27, 2019.

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 6-2 (1) and (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, where a housing lease contract is implicitly renewed, the lessee may notify the lessor of the termination of the contract at any time, and the termination thereof shall take effect when three months elapse from the date the lessor is notified of such termination.

According to the above facts and the above legal provisions, the lease contract of this case can be deemed to have been lawfully terminated and terminated on or around August 27, 2019, which was three months from August 27, 2019 when the Plaintiff declared the Defendant to terminate the lease contract of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to refund KRW 160 million to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and judgment asserted that, inasmuch as E and F, the former owner of the instant real estate, leased the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and received the lease deposit from the Plaintiff, the Defendant only prepared a lease contract on the instant real estate from the Plaintiff, E, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff did not have the duty to return the said lease deposit to the Plaintiff

On the other hand, the above evidence and evidence No. 1 are written and arguments.