The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(2) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking delivery of the instant real estate (U.S. District Court Decision 2013Kadan18306) and received an order to dismiss the complaint on January 22, 2014, and the Defendant’s execution on February 5, 2014 upon receipt of a decision to prohibit the transfer of possession of the instant real estate (No. 2013Kadan4358, the same court) against D on January 22, 2014. However, it is insufficient to deem that the instant lease was terminated by the mere fact of the recognition alone.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on May 14, 2014 on the instant lease agreement and the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the Defendant.

(A) On the other hand, the Defendant’s lease of the instant real estate to a third party on March 2, 2015 has no dispute between the parties, but to deem that the instant lease contract was implicitly agreed.

(2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the deposit amount of KRW 150,000,000 to be refunded. Since the lease of this case ends on March 2, 2015, the Defendant shall return the remainder after deducting the overdue rent from the deposit to the Plaintiff.

From April 19, 2013 to March 2, 2015, the beginning date of the lease of this case, D only remitted to the Defendant a rent of KRW 6 million, and the Plaintiff did not pay the rent, as recognized earlier. Therefore, the deposit to be returned by the Defendant is as follows.

* It is clear that the security deposit to be returned to the Defendant remains when calculated as above. [The sum of the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 168,00,000 per month from April 19, 2013 to March 2, 2015 = 7.5 million x (2.5 million x (2212/30)] - six million ].

4. The plaintiff's claim seeking the return of the remaining security deposit is dismissed as it is without merit.