1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 10, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be recognized by adding together the whole purport of the pleadings to Gap's statements as to Gap's 1 to 3, 5, 9 to 13 and witness Eul's testimony.

On January 25, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 35,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 35,000,00 with respect to the part of the second floor of the Nam-gu Seoul metropolitan apartment building No. 203 and 204 (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) from January 25, 2012, and paid KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant on the same day.

B. On June 2, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the said lease agreement.

C. After the Plaintiff was a director of the instant building, the Plaintiff sent the key to the instant building to the Defendant by mail on July 13, 2016.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the above lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated on September 2, 2015 due to the Plaintiff’s lawful termination notice, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 35,000,000 as lease deposit and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 10, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the date of the instant judgment.

B. On January 25, 2012, the Defendant asserted that, after entering into a lease agreement with the Defendant on January 25, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 35,000,000 to the Defendant’s bank account. The Plaintiff’s failure to implement the lease agreement became null and void. However, according to the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant on January 25, 2012 may be recognized. The entries in the evidence Nos. 2 through 10 alone in the evidence No. 2 and 10 are insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case.