The defendant shall receive KRW 9,720,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time deliver the building listed in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. On December 19, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant, with the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 250,000,000, and the period from February 15, 2014 to February 14, 2016.

B) After that, on February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) between February 15, 2016 and February 14, 2018, by setting the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 300,000,000, and the period from February 15, 2016 to February 14, 2018.

(2) The lease contract of this case was concluded again, and thereafter, the lease contract of this case was explicitly renewed at the time of the termination of the lease term, and terminated on February 14, 2020, and the expiration of the lease term with the expiration of the lease term on February 14, 2020. [Grounds for recognition] According to the facts of recognition as above, the lease contract of this case has expired on February 14, 2020 with the expiration of the lease term of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, and pay the money calculated by the ratio of KRW 300,000 per month from March 15, 2019 to the expiration of the delivery of the building of this case to the expiration of the delivery of the building of this case.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion and judgment 1) The Defendant, on March 13, 2020, placed a director on the instant building on March 13, 2020. However, the Defendant did not intend to transfer the key of the instant building to the Plaintiff because it did not receive a refund deposit from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant did not use the instant building after March 14, 2020, and cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition before the refund of the lease deposit. (2) The judgment of the Defendant was based on the following: (a) the lessee’s obligation to return the leased object arising from the termination of the lease agreement and the lessor’s obligation to return the remainder after deducting the lessee’s overdue rent from the lessor.