1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from September 6, 2016 to KRW 25,683,680 and KRW 619,940 among the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant in the form of the in personam lease (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the said apartment 102, Dong 1304 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the Defendant, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”), with respect to the lease period from November 14, 2013 to 24 months, and the lease deposit amount as KRW 465 million and the lease deposit amount as KRW 465 million, and the Plaintiff paid all the deposit amount to the Defendant.

B. On October 26, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that he/she would return the deposit without extending it at the expiration of the term of the instant lease contract. On November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content to the same effect, but all were returned. (2) On January 14, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to transfer the deposit amount of KRW 50 million, which was promised to pay to the Defendant before concluding another lease contract. On January 19, 2016, the Defendant would deposit the deposit if the Plaintiff notified the date of the director. On the same day, the Plaintiff sent to the effect that “the Plaintiff will be a director at the end of March 2016, and the Plaintiff could conclude a new lease contract by returning the deposit amount, so he/she could deposit the deposit amount at the present time.”

(The above communication was made by mobile phone text messages). On January 19, 2016, the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff KRW 46,50,000,000, out of the deposit money for the lease contract of this case, to the Plaintiff.

3) On March 30, 2016 and April 25, 2016, the Plaintiff sent text messages to each of the Defendant’s daughters to the effect that “on May 5, 2016, the Plaintiff would return the deposit for lease.” On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate that “on May 5, 2016, the Plaintiff was the director of the deposit for lease.” However, the Defendant returned the certificate that “on April 22, 2016, the deposit for lease was returned.”