The defendant from the plaintiff 26,398,070 to August 1, 2017.

A. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on November 19, 2013, the term of the contract from January 1, 2013 to October 31, 2015, the lease deposit amount of KRW 38,10,000, and the rent of KRW 253,690 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant. The fact that the said lease agreement was terminated on October 31, 2015 is not disputed between the parties, or that the said lease agreement was terminated by the expiration of the period of contract from January 1, 2013 to October 31, 2015, is recognized in accordance with the purport of the entire entries and arguments in subparagraph 2-6.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) As to the assertion regarding the renewal of a contract, the Defendant filed an application for the instant lease deposit loan with the Korea Scenic Savings Bank (hereinafter “the Korea Scenic Savings Bank”) as collateral, and confirmed whether there was any reason to restrict the prior designation of the Korea Scenic Savings Bank, and the Korea Scenic Savings Bank did not conclude a lease renewal contract with the Plaintiff since the Plaintiff was still pending in a lawsuit to inform the Korea Scenic Savings Bank of the absence of prior provisional seizure, and even if there was a seizure and collection order on the instant lease deposit, the Plaintiff must conclude a renewal contract with the Defendant. (2) However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and even if the Defendant’s assertion was acknowledged, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground to refuse the Plaintiff’s request for the extradition of the instant case. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. 1 The defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request for extradition prior to the refund of the remaining lease deposit from the plaintiff."