1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The summary of the cause of the claim was entirely managed by the Defendant, on April 30, 2014, the lease contract, etc. for the Y-based D ground room buildings owned by the Plaintiff. However, on January 23, 2015, the Defendant determined the F-ho of the above building as KRW 40,000,000, and on January 23, 2015, the Defendant leased the H-ho of the above building as KRW 35,00,000 to the Plaintiff, respectively, and deposited KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, since the Defendant embezzled KRW 70,000,000 as the lease deposit that the Defendant should transfer to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money and its delay damages to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages or unjust enrichment.

2. Determination

A. The interpretation of the declaration of intention of the relevant legal doctrine clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties gave to the display act.

If the content of a contract is written in writing between the parties to the contract, the phrase used in writing shall not be cited, but the objective meaning given by the parties to the contract shall be reasonably interpreted according to the contents written in writing regardless of the parties' internal intent.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Da51222 delivered on June 30, 1995, 200Da27923 delivered on October 6, 200, etc.). In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression of intent ought to be recognized.

(Supreme Court Decision 200Da72572 Decided May 24, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44471 Decided November 29, 2012, etc.) B.

On April 30, 2014, with respect to F-ho rental deposit of KRW 40,00,000, the Plaintiff leased F-ho from E as one of the Defendant’s brokerage on April 30, 2014, the lease deposit of KRW 40,00,00 among the studio D ground buildings in Ansan-si, Ansan-si. The fact that the Defendant received the lease deposit from E on behalf of the Plaintiff at that time, or that it received the lease deposit from E by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole.