1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 5,748,169 and also the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Basic Facts

On May 14, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Multi-household Housing 202 (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant, with the lease deposit of KRW 120,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 120,000 from July 10, 201 to July 9, 2013.

(A) On May 13, 2013, the Defendant sent a written notification to the Plaintiff, stating that “When the Plaintiff wishes to extend the deposit to KRW 150 million upon the expiration of the lease term, the deposit is paid to KRW 120,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 150,000,000,” and the Plaintiff sent a written notification to the Defendant on May 31, 2013, stating that “When there is no intention to renew the lease term, the Plaintiff shall return the deposit to the Defendant on the expiration of the lease term.”

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 5, 2013, when it was unable to refund the deposit after the expiration of the lease term, and was in progress on January 1, 2014, the Plaintiff was a director of the instant building to a multi-household house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D from the instant building to the same year.

1.2. After completing a move-in report;

1. Around 13. Around 13.m., the Defendant was informed of the fact that he was the director and the password of the lock-up lock-up system of the instant building.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 5-3, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the lease contract of this case was terminated on July 9, 2013, and the plaintiff completed the delivery of the building of this case to the defendant on January 13, 2014, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 120,00,000 and damages for delay after January 14, 2014.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not complete the duty of delivery of the building since the plaintiff did not have the key to the lock-up locking device. However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff moved in the building of this case.