A. On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the first floor C (hereinafter “instant housing”) among the buildings listed in the attached list owned by the Defendant, setting the lease deposit of KRW 48 million and the lease term from April 9, 2014 to April 8, 2016, and paid KRW 48 million to the Defendant around that time.

B. Around January 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract was terminated.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, the lease contract of this case was terminated by the plaintiff's notice of termination. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 48 million to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful in violation of jurisdiction since the plaintiff's domicile recorded in the complaint is not the present domicile of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's domicile is a house of this case. The plaintiff's domicile is not a dispute between the parties. However, since the resident registration is important data in determining the domicile, but the address is not determined solely, and there are two or more addresses at the same time (Article 18 (2) of the Civil Act). Thus, the place where the plaintiff operates and lives in the beauty room can be the domicile of the plaintiff. The defendant's argument that the defendant did not cooperate in the repair is without merit. As to the defendant's assertion that the defendant did not cooperate in the repair, the lease of the house of this case is not good for the reason that the plaintiff did not cooperate in leasing the house of this case to another person, but the plaintiff did not cooperate in moving the house of this case.