A. Although Nonparty B attempted to reside with the Plaintiff’s loan support for the building B in Boan-si, which is owned by the Defendant, Nonparty B could not pass the examination because it has a lot of liabilities to the said building C.

Accordingly, Nonparty B and the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the Plaintiff, Boan-si D and 303 under the lease support, and agreed to actually reside in the said C building.

B. On December 2, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on December 2, 201, 201, setting forth the deposit amount of KRW 40 million for the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit between December 15, 201 and December 14, 2013, and paid KRW 40 million to the Defendant on December 15, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, a pre-tax agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding Bosi-si D and 303 shall be deemed to have been concluded by the Defendant by deceiving the subject matter of the pre-tax.

In addition, since the complaint of this case containing the plaintiff's expression of intent to cancel the above lease contract reaches the defendant, the lease contract of this case is deemed to have been cancelled due to fraud.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,00 and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 16, 201 to December 2, 2015, which is the day following the day on which the Plaintiff paid the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the lease from the return of unjust enrichment to the Defendant, as the Plaintiff seeks.

The defendant asserts that since B did not pay management expenses of KRW 2,350,00,000 and C were not returned, the deposit cannot be refunded.

However, the plaintiff seeks the return of the deposit in accordance with the lease contract.