1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the two-story 38.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) of the building indicated in the attached Table among the buildings indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”) should be leased to the Defendant with the deposit deposit 25 million won and the lease period from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the Plaintiff received the said deposit deposit 25 million won from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff transferred the instant building to the Defendant.

B. On September 7, 2017, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that “The instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed on June 1, 2016, and the Defendant’s father was notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant lease agreement on July 22, 2017, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant lease agreement in writing again.” At that time, the said certificate reached the Plaintiff.

C. On December 21, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the return of the lease deposit of KRW 25 million with the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch Office 2017 Ghana22933, and on December 28, 2017, the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) received a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) from the said court to the effect that “the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) would pay KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case),” and the said decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive on January 18, 2018.

Around January 2018, the Defendant completed the registration of housing lease with respect to the instant building, and delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff around February 20, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case should be dismissed in whole or in part for the following reasons. A.

On May 2016, the Defendant decided to extend the lease period of the instant lease between the Defendant and the Defendant for two years.