1. The Defendant’s KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from February 14, 2018 to July 31, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease term of 107 Dong-dong 1404 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from June 12, 2015 to November 30, 2016, and the lease deposit of 170 million won.

The Plaintiff paid the Defendant a down payment of KRW 17 million on May 1, 2015, and KRW 153 million on June 12, 2015, and paid the remainder of KRW 153 million in full.

B. The Plaintiff decided to extend the term of the above lease to one year with the Defendant, and concluded a lease contract by reducing the term of the lease from December 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017, from December 31, 2016, to KRW 150 million.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff received a refund of KRW 20 million from the Defendant on the difference in the said lease deposit.

C. On February 13, 2018, the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant. On February 19, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a letter verifying that the instant apartment contract had expired, and thus, the deposit was returned to the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above recognition, the lease of this case was terminated upon the expiration of its validity.

As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the deposit deposit KRW 150 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from February 14, 2018 to July 31, 2018, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, barring special circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the plaintiff is unable to refund the deposit because the plaintiff damaged the apartment of this case and did not enter into a rental contract with another person, and instead, he is entitled to receive the compensation for damages caused by the above damage, but there is no evidence

The defendant.