2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

A. In around 2007, the Plaintiff leased approximately 46.45 square meters of the building located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, where the Defendant’s father was owned (hereinafter “instant store”) and operated a business to provide clothes.

B. On September 26, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant who succeeded to the instant building from the death of C, which set forth KRW 20 million as lease deposit, KRW 600,000 per month on September 26, 2010, KRW 20,000 as lease deposit, KRW 70,000 per month on February 28, 2014, KRW 70,000 per month on rent (payment on February 25, 201), and 24 months as lease term.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease agreement”) February 28, 2014.

The Plaintiff did not pay a rent under the instant lease agreement to the Defendant from January 2016 and possessed the instant store to the present day without paying it from January 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Eul's 2, 4 through 7 (including attachment of provisional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since the lease contract of this case, which is the cause of the claim, is terminated upon the expiration of the period, the defendant must return the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million to the plaintiff.

Around December 2015, the Plaintiff arranged a new lessee to the Defendant, but the Defendant refused to enter into a lease agreement with the new lessee without justifiable grounds.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 24 million equivalent to the premium that the new lessee intended to pay to the Plaintiff as damages under Article 10-4(3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

B. Since the instant lease agreement on the claim for return of the deposit for lease expires on or after February 27, 2016, the Defendant is obligated to return the deposit to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million according to the said lease agreement.

In this regard, the defendant paid rent or unjust enrichment from the lease deposit to the delivery completion date from January 2016, when the plaintiff operated the store of this case.