A. On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the building C and 201 (hereinafter “instant housing”) from the period of lease from June 3, 2017 to June 2, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

B. On June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant that “the Defendant will return the security deposit to the new lessee when the Plaintiff directors, and the director’s expenses will be paid KRW 1,500,000” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. On December 15, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred the instant house to the Defendant on the condition that the new lessee for the instant house was not the lessee, and was subject to the order of lease registration as to the instant house.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the lease contract of this case was terminated through the agreement of this case. Since the plaintiff delivered the housing of this case to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the lease deposit, the director fee, and the delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) did not have agreed upon the instant lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and agreed to refund the lease deposit under the condition that the new lessee enters, but the condition was not fulfilled. As such, the Plaintiff is not obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff. 2) In order to seek a new lessee, the Plaintiff is obliged to cancel the lease registration and perform the duty to restore the part of the wall and remote areas.

3. Determination

A. We examine whether the instant lease contract was terminated by agreement, and evidence No. 3-1, 2, 4, 4.