1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 23, 2011, the Defendant is the owner of the building at issue, which completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the B)-B (B)-02 (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Around October 6, 2012, Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and 103 Dong 301, the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000 per month, monthly rent of KRW 400,000,000 from November 4, 2012 to November 3, 2013, the Defendant’s ancillaryD lived together with the instant building. The lease was divided after setting the lease term from November 3, 2012 to November 3, 2013.

C. On November 3, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) stating that the Defendant leased the instant building to the Plaintiff by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, and from November 3, 2012, the lease period of KRW 24 months from November 3, 2012.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's 20 million won D-B.

It was used to pay the lease deposit stated in the subsection.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (the defendant's defense that the document was forged, but it is not sufficient to admit the document No. 8 only with the statement No. 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it), No. 3, Eul evidence No. 3-2 and No. 3-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. On November 3, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendant leased one square column of the instant building from the Defendant to KRW 20 million; (b) the Defendant and the instant lease agreement was prepared; (c) the Plaintiff requested the return of the lease deposit on several occasions in writing, by wire, or orally, due to the expiration of the lease term; and (d) the Defendant refused to return the lease deposit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant.

B. In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-1, and 3-2, each of the statements in Gap evidence 3 and Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 3-1, and 3-2, there is no dispute between the parties, or in light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, and 3-1.