1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,927,163 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 17, 2017 to July 6, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 25, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease Pyeongtaek-si C and its ground (hereinafter “instant factory”) up to June 30, 2014, by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million, monthly rent of KRW 67 million (excluding value-added tax), and paid KRW 80 million to the Defendant.

B. On May 8, 2017, while the Plaintiff renewed the instant lease agreement and continuously occupied and used the instant factory, the Plaintiff agreed to the instant lease agreement with the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the lease contract of this case was terminated due to the termination of agreement. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000 and delay damages.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant had damaged the factory of this case and failed to perform its duty to restore it, the amount equivalent to the expenses incurred in restitution from the lease deposit to be returned by the Defendant, and the amount equivalent to the rent that the Defendant incurred as a result of the Defendant’s failure to lease the factory of this case for the necessary period

B. The lease subject matter was partially damaged in the lease agreement in the first legal doctrine regarding the assertion of deduction equivalent to the cost of restitution.

Even if a lessee uses an object during the lease period, the economic assessment of the damaged area caused by the wear of the object of lease is already reflected in rent, etc., so it cannot be deemed that the lessee has to restore the leased object as it is at the time when the object of lease is delivered from the lessor.