1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 10 million.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. Indication of claim;

A. On March 6, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million and the term of lease from April 10, 2015 to April 9, 2017, the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million was paid to the Defendant around that time.

B. On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a modified contract with the Defendant to rent the instant apartment from April 10, 2017 to April 9, 2019 (hereinafter “instant contract”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million in difference of the lease deposit to the Defendant.

C. Since the contract of this case terminated upon the expiration of the term, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million of the lease deposit = the total amount of KRW 210 million of the lease deposit - the personal rehabilitation case against the Defendant (this Court Decision 2016, 2016, 29624, February 16, 2017), 200 million of the lease deposit finalized on the part of the personal creditor list.

2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by public notice) of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. Some dismissed parts of the Plaintiff claimed for late payment from the day after the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the 10 million won, but the Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit is concurrently performed with the Plaintiff’s obligation to deliver the apartment of this case. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay damages for delay on the lease deposit only after the Plaintiff received the delivery of the apartment of this case from the Plaintiff or received the performance of the obligation.

Therefore, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff either delivered the apartment of this case to the defendant or provided the performance of the apartment of this case only with the statement of No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay is without merit.