A. On August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the title deposit of 601 to 603, Ansan-si B building from the Defendant from the Defendant during the period from September 19, 2013 to August 31, 2014, with the lease deposit of 25 million won, monthly rent of 1.4 million won (additional tax separate), and the lease period from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2014.

B. On June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff delivered the subject matter to the Defendant, and the Defendant had the amount to be deducted out of the lease deposit, and returned only KRW 8,376,464 to the Plaintiff on June 8, 2015.

C. Items that the Plaintiff is the person who is the money to be deducted from the above lease deposit are as follows.

① Charges for causing traffic congestion are KRW 216,460. ② Environmental improvement charges ② ③ KRW 7,720,00 (including additional taxes) for the rent of August 4, 2014. ④ The delivery of the object on September 4, 2014. As such, KRW 205,30 for nine minutes (4 days) for nine minutes (4 days) and KRW 205,330 for five minutes (4 days), and KRW 930,128 for the unpaid management expenses (4,540 for the first period) on July 7, 2014 and August 2014.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 13,569,358 which was not yet returned among the lease deposit of this case (i.e., KRW 25 million - partial payment of KRW 8,376,464 - The amount of KRW 3,054,178 of which was deducted) and damages for delay.

In addition, even though the Plaintiff delivered the subject matter of this case on September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff returned only a part of the rent deposit on June 8, 2015, and thus, the lease deposit amount to be returned is KRW 21,945,822 (i.e., KRW 25 million - the insurer - KRW 3,054,178).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay from June 9, 2015 to the Plaintiff, the sum of KRW 14,568,644, and KRW 13,569,358, which correspond to the principal of the Plaintiff.

B. The following should be additionally deducted from the security deposit for lease of this case’s purport of the Defendant’s assertion.

On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff had to do so.