Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

A. On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Central Saemaul Depository and Jeju-si Land C (hereinafter “instant building”) on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 12,00,000,000, annual rent of KRW 12,000,000, and the lease period from February 15, 2014 to January 31, 2015.

B. On June 3, 2014, the Defendant purchased the instant building from the Central Saemaul Savings Depository, and acquired the obligation to return the lease deposit. On December 30, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building.

C. On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that notifies the Defendant that the Plaintiff had no intent to renew the lease contract, and delivered the instant building portion to the Defendant after the lease term expires.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, assertion of parties to the purport of whole pleadings

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 12,00,000 and damages for delay for lease deposit, since the Plaintiff did not refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff even after receiving the instant building portion from the Plaintiff after the expiration of the lease term. 2) The Plaintiff received KRW 30,000,000 from the Defendant is merely the fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 30,000 from the Defendant as premium.

B. The Plaintiff already received a total of KRW 30,000,000 from the Defendant, including KRW 12,000,000 for lease deposit and KRW 18,000 for premiums, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

Judgment

In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant already returned KRW 12,00,000 to the Plaintiff in consideration of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 2 (including the paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) through 4, 7. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless.

① On January 13, 2015, the Defendant is the name of the deposit for lease and premium to be paid to D who performed remodeling works on the fourth through seventh floor of the instant building.