The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 120,000,000 as well as to the plaintiff on June 2016.

A. On September 26, 2008, D, the mother of the Plaintiff, entered into an initial lease agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff, entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid 95,000,000 won for the first lease deposit to the Defendant (hereinafter “the first lease agreement”) from October 25, 2008 to October 24, 2010, respectively, for the lease deposit amounting to KRW 95,00,000 from October 25, 2008 to October 24, 2010.

B. On May 2, 201, D, the Plaintiff’s mother, on behalf of the Plaintiff, entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, under which the term of the initial lease agreement is changed to KRW 120,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid KRW 25,000,000, increased lease deposit to the Defendant on the same day.

C. On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited two keys to the entrance and exit of the instant house with the Defendant as the depositee under the Seoul Central District Court No. 2016 water No. 11. 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 7, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The reason why the court should explain this part of the Defendant’s defense is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, “1. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense to the Defendant’s present safety,” and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts acknowledged in the above Paragraph 1 above, since it is apparent that the lease contract of this case has expired due to the expiration of the term of validity, the defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 120,000 (=95,000,000 + 25,000,000) to the plaintiff.

(b)a lease deposit;