1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The purport of the judgment on the cause of claim is that the Plaintiff did not agree to the mutual conversion of the rental deposit and rent as prescribed in Article 4 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s notification. Thus, the instant lease agreement is null and void against the notification of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, which is an effective provision in accordance with the legal doctrine of Supreme Court Decision 2013Da42236 Decided November 18, 2016. However, the instant lease agreement remains valid as a lease based on the terms and conditions of the standard rental deposit and standard rent pursuant

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the deposit amounting to KRW 78,977,639 (i.e., converted deposit KRW 177,700,000 - Standard deposit deposit amounting to KRW 98,722,361) and damages for delay determined by the ratio of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from April 1, 2009 to June 12, 2017, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, from the next day to the date of full payment, to the date of the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The difference between the converted rental deposit and the standard rental deposit is a bona fide beneficiary prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the Defendant is not obligated to refund interest. (2) In accordance with the legal doctrine as to partial invalidation, the Defendant bears the obligation to return the deposit received in excess of the standard rental deposit to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. On the other hand, the Plaintiff is also obligated to pay the difference between the standard rent and the converted rent

Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff did not pay the difference of rent, the Defendant is also liable for the difference of deposit.