A. On August 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) leased to the Plaintiff KRW 400,000,000, out of KRW 10,000,000 of the lease deposit; (b) paid KRW 5,000,00 by August 13, 2013; and (c) paid KRW 5,00,000 on October 7, 2013; (d) paid KRW 80,000,00 from September 1, 2013; and (e) paid KRW 80,000,000 from September 1, 2013 to August 1, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease”); and (e) the Plaintiff paid only KRW 5,00,00 among the lease deposit to the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff operated the restaurant with the trade name “D” in the instant building, and considered whether the Plaintiff continued to operate the restaurant due to economic and psychological factors during its operation. On December 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a text message containing such details with the Defendant via an wire call, or filed a petition with the Defendant on January 6, 2014, and filed a petition with the Defendant for the instant lease after closing the restaurant.

C. From January 9, 2014, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to deliver the instant building via text messages.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s passage on January 23, 2014 and the same year.

2. On March 2, 200, most of the house units used by the Plaintiff in the instant building moved to another place, and continuously demanded the Defendant to return the deposit money from February 8, 2014 to February 13, 2014, and on February 12, 2014, the Defendant sent the key of the instant building and the instant lease agreement to the Defendant by mail and delivered the key, etc. to the Defendant on February 13, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 10 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the lease deposit is determined as to the termination of the instant lease agreement, as the case where the contract is generally concluded in order to cancel the agreement.