1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 18, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease a house of 164 square meters on the second floor (hereinafter “instant building”) among the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the Seoul-dong-gu, Yongsan-gu (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the term from January 31, 2016 to January 31, 2018 (hereinafter “the term of the instant lease”). The term of the special agreement of the instant lease agreement is ① the contract in the current state

‘The contents of ‘' stipulate the contents, etc.

B. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,00,000 as part of the deposit, and paid KRW 18,000,000 as the remainder of the deposit on January 31, 2016, and was handed over by the Defendant on the same day.

C. On June 3, 2017, before the expiration of the above lease term, the Plaintiff taken measures to restore the building to its original state upon leaving the building of this case. The lease contract of this case expired on January 31, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000 and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to succeed to the structure installed by the former lessee and continued to use it. Since the Plaintiff installed a structure, such as a direct signboard, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff performed the duty to restore the said structure, so long as the Plaintiff did not remove the said structure, the instant building was not ordered even until now. The Defendant deducteds the lease deposit from the above lease deposit to the name city of the instant building with unjust enrichment equivalent to rent and the cost of removal.