The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff leased, with the Defendant, the lease deposit for KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.6 million, and the lease period from November 25, 2015 to November 25, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant and used and profit from the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On August 2017, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to refuse to renew the lease agreement to the Defendant, which is three months before the expiration of the lease term.

C. After that, on October 9, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with E on a deposit for lease deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.6 million, and the lease term from November 25, 2017 to November 24, 2019 with respect to the F apartment subparagraph G of the Yongsan-si District, the Plaintiff agreed that at the time of the lease agreement that the lessee would lease the said apartment, the lessor may repay the remainder of the lease deposit to the lessor and the lessee may rescind the contract with the waiver of the down payment (if there is no advance payment, the remainder).

On the other hand, on October 9, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to E as down payment, and the remainder KRW 45 million was paid on November 25, 2017.

E. On November 2017, the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, following Daom, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to return the lease deposit, and at the same time, concluded a lease agreement with a new apartment to move to, and paid KRW 5 million as the down payment. As such, the Plaintiff sent a document verifying the content of the lease agreement to the effect that the Defendant may incur damage from forfeiture of the down payment unless the lease deposit is returned to the Defendant at the expiration date. At that time, the above content-certified mail was served on the Defendant.

F. However, the Defendant did not seek a new lessee after November 25, 2017 to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.