A. The fourth floor D of the building in Gwangju City (hereinafter “instant building”) is owned by the Defendant.

B. On February 25, 2017, E, the Defendant’s spouse, leased the instant building to the Plaintiff with a deposit of KRW 140 million, monthly rent of KRW 250,000,000, and the lease term from February 25, 2017 to February 24, 2019 (However, a KRW 100,000,000 out of the above deposit, shall be paid immediately after the contract is concluded, and the remaining KRW 20,000,000 shall be paid in installments each month; hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) and affixed the Defendant’s seal on the lease agreement.

C. The Plaintiff, as the above lease deposit, paid KRW 100 million on the date of the contract, and paid KRW 20 million on October 23, 2017 and October 24, 2017, and paid KRW 19.2 million on 24 occasions from March 25, 2017 to February 25, 2019 (=80,000 won x 24 times).

On November 12, 2018, the Plaintiff notified E that he/she had no intent to renew the instant lease agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 to 7, 9, 10 evidence (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Inasmuch as the term of the instant lease agreement expires, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 140 million and the damages for delay.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the actual owner of the instant building is E, and the instant lease agreement was concluded by E, and the Plaintiff shall seek the return of deposit to E, and even if the Defendant is obligated to return the deposit to the Plaintiff.

In addition, the delivery of the building of this case should be carried out simultaneously.

3. Determination

A. The parties to the instant lease agreement and the validity thereof (1) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the actual owner of the instant building is E, and even if E has title trusted the instant building to the Defendant, the Plaintiff may do so.