1. The defendant is ordered from the plaintiff to 2 partitions 75.5 square meters in the left-hand room of the multi-family house in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

On April 3, 2012, the Defendant: (a) leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,00,000,000 from April 29, 2012 to the Plaintiff on the left-hand side of the multi-family house in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) received KRW 40,00,000 from the Plaintiff on April 6, 2018; and (c) the Plaintiff sent the Defendant with a certificate of the content that “the Plaintiff would cancel the lease deposit so that it would return the lease deposit” on April 6, 2018; (d) there is no dispute between the parties; or (e) it may be recognized by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence No. 1 and No. 2.

According to the above facts of recognition, the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on the real estate of this case between the plaintiff and the tenant was implicitly renewed after the expiration of the original lease term, and the termination on or after July 6, 2018, which became three months from the tenant by means of the content certification as of April 6, 2018.

Since the Housing Lease Protection Act (Article 6-2 (2)), the defendant shall return the deposit to the plaintiff 40,000,000 won, except in extenuating circumstances.

As to this, the defendant argued that, at the time of the above lease contract, the new lessee was determined by the plaintiff and the return of the deposit was not possible until the time when the director schedule is determined.

According to the evidence No. 2, No. 2, and No. 2, each of the terms of the above lease agreement, it is acknowledged that the agreement provides that "(i) any balance will be simultaneously performed with the real estate name city, and ② any director schedule will be decided under mutual agreement after the appointment of the lessee at the time of the expiration of the lease agreement," but the above agreement merely purports that the Plaintiff shall consult with the new lessee's director schedule when performing the obligation to specify the real estate name of this case after the termination of the contract.