1. The Defendant’s KRW 150,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from November 6, 2017 to November 22, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, and 10 (including household numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiff, around August 2, 2015, leased deposit money of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul (hereinafter the instant house) and operation 202 (the instant house) owned by the Defendant from the Defendant at KRW 150,00,00 (a separate agreement was not entered) and the lease term was from September 15, 2015 to September 15, 2017 (the instant lease). The Plaintiff, at that time, notified the Defendant of the absence of intention to extend the contract by the end of July 2017 before the expiration of the contract term, and notified the Defendant of the entry and exit of each of the instant houses from September 15, 2017 to the expiration of the contract term.

According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated on September 15, 2017, and the plaintiff delivered the house of this case at latest on November 5, 2017 by notifying the defendant of the entrance password. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 150 million won per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 6, 2017 to November 22, 2017 when the duplicate of the complaint of this case was delivered to the defendant, and 5% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant could not immediately seek a new lessee because the Plaintiff failed to inform in advance the door password of the instant house, and interfere with the Plaintiff’s holding office by informing him of the entrance door password on November 5, 2017. ② Since the instant house was not restored to its original state, the Defendant could respond to the Plaintiff’s request.