1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,316,130 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 7, 2016 to August 8, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and Sejong Special Self-Governing City, and one-halfth (hereinafter “the subject matter of the instant lease”) among the 106, 201 and 1/2 (hereinafter “the subject matter of the instant lease”) with a deposit of KRW 35,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,250,000, and one-year lease term of KRW 2,250,000 (hereinafter “the instant lease”). The Plaintiff paid a deposit to the Defendant and received the subject matter of the instant lease from the Defendant.

B. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed on March 23, 2016.

C. On June 2016, the Plaintiff removed from the leased object of this case, but did not inform the Defendant of the passwords available for access to the leased object of this case at the time of withdrawal.

On December 6, 2016, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the passwords allowing access to the leased object of this case.

E. Meanwhile, from May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 26,80,000 to the Defendant under the name of rent under the instant lease agreement from May 15, 2015 to the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the timing of termination of the instant lease agreement

A. On June 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the instant lease agreement. The Plaintiff asserted that, in full view of the testimony of the Defendant and the witness D, agreement on the termination of the instant lease agreement, it may be acknowledged that the agreement was reached between the Defendant and the Defendant. (ii) The Defendant cannot be deemed to have consented to the termination of the instant lease agreement even in accordance with the content of the instant text message between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. (ii) At this court, D testified to the effect that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant sent a telephone call with the Defendant on or after the end of April 2016.” However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant testified to the effect that the instant lease agreement was concluded.”