1. The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the separate sheet from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time. 420,000,000 won shall be applied to the plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including branch numbers), respectively.

On July 30, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Nonparty C on the lease term of KRW 420,000,000 for each of the lease deposit, from August 8, 2010 to August 7, 2012. The Plaintiff paid KRW 420,00,000 to Nonparty C with the lease deposit.

B. On April 3, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant who acquired the ownership of the instant officetel, on the same day, on the following day: (a) the lease deposit was paid in lieu of the previous lease agreement; and (b) the term of lease was the same as the previous lease agreement, except as otherwise stipulated from April 3, 2012 to October 31, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and (c) the Defendant received registration for the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis for the instant officetel from the Defendant on the same day.

C. Meanwhile, around July 2012, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to temporarily complete the registration of cancellation on the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon in the name of the Plaintiff in order to obtain a loan of KRW 100 million from the instant officetel as collateral. Accordingly, the Plaintiff complied with the amount of loan from the Defendant and revoked the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon on the condition that the Plaintiff newly obtained a registration of the establishment of chonsegwon by August 10, 2012.

However, without the Plaintiff’s consent, the Defendant received a large amount of money by borrowing KRW 150 million from the instant officetel as collateral, and the Plaintiff demanded the return of the lease deposit to the Defendant pursuant to the Defendant’s measure. Ultimately, the Plaintiff and the Defendant on November 21, 2013, which was after the termination of the instant lease agreement, are related to the return of the lease deposit.