1. The Defendant’s KRW 70,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 19, 2013 to January 30, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a public institution that provides support for rental housing to the occupants of a housing after obtaining a lease agreement with a housing owner for the housing stability of the disadvantaged class, such as a recipient of basic living security, etc.

B. In accordance with the foregoing business, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 3,500,000 out of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff when entering into a lease contract with the occupant D, and the remaining KRW 66,50,000,000 out of the lease deposit shall be paid to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff shall be paid to the Plaintiff when the lease contract is terminated.

C. D paid KRW 3,500,000 among the lease deposit to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 66,500,000 to the Defendant the remainder of the lease deposit, and D occupied the aforementioned KRW 201 around October 2011.

On the other hand, the above 201 No. 201 acquired E's ownership due to sale by voluntary auction on December 18, 2013.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 5, Evidence No. 5, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that, despite the fact that the subject matter of the instant lease agreement was stipulated in the lease agreement No. 301, the Defendant did not deliver the subject matter, and thus, the Plaintiff sought the cancellation of the instant lease agreement and the return of the lease deposit on the grounds of nonperformance.

(2) However, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant granted the right to lease No. 201 to the contractor B, who is a contractor for construction works, for the payment of the construction cost, and did not grant the right to lease No. 301, and three floors in the front of the structure of multi-household houses in front of the structure.