1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 2,679,00 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 15% from October 20, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the terms that the Defendant leases the leased deposit to the Plaintiff by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 160,000,000 and the lease period of KRW 24 months from May 22, 2014 to May 21, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The Plaintiff paid KRW 15,00,000 on the date of the contract as the above lease deposit, and KRW 145,000,000 on May 22, 2014 to the Defendant, and on the same day, occupied and resided in the building in this case.

B. On February 13, 2016, which was three months from May 21, 2016, the expiration date of the term of the instant contract, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a text message stating, “I will not extend the contract due to the expiration of the term of the pre-paid contract and under the circumstances of the low-income bracket.” As a result, I sent the Defendant a text message stating, “I would have to contact this issue.”

C. Around that time, the Defendant responded to the purport that, since a large amount of funds were invested in the completion stage of the construction of a Dora building that he newly built in Gunpo-si, the Defendant cannot set up and refund the lease deposit on the expiration date of the contract term of this case, and that, when the completion inspection was conducted at the beginning of May 2016 and the financial situation was unre

However, the plaintiff expressed his position that it is difficult to accept the defendant's proposal.

On April 27, 2016, the Defendant responded to the following: (a) on April 27, 2016, “I am hyp, in the legal aspect of the law, hypian; (b) the absolute amount before the law does not vary; (c) the law does not comply with the law as it treats; and (d) the Defendant called “I hyp, hyp, hyp to the real estate.”

E. On May 2016, the Plaintiff, after the removal from the instant real estate, has raised a deposit for lease necessary for leasing another house to live.