1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 5, 2012, the Defendant leased the first floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D ground building (hereinafter in this case’s store) from the Plaintiff as a security deposit of KRW 200 million, monthly rent of KRW 26 million, and the period from January 5, 2012 to 36 months, and operated a restaurant by paying a security deposit to the Plaintiff.

B. On August 13, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease agreement on the grounds of the delinquency in rent, and the Defendant delivered the instant store to the Plaintiff on January 31, 2013.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of deposit (hereinafter “the lawsuit claiming the return of deposit”) with the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap24555, and the court closed the pleadings on October 17, 2013 and rendered a judgment on November 7, 2013 that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 74,193,550 to the Defendant and delay damages.”

The above judgment was affirmed by the defendant's appeal but the appeal was withdrawn.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant delivered the instant store to the Plaintiff without restoring it to the original state on January 31, 2013, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 31 million to E on July 8, 2013, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the expenses incurred in restoring to the original state. Therefore, at the time of the lawsuit claiming the return of deposit, the Plaintiff’s restoration claim to the original state against the Defendant and the Defendant’s claim to return the deposit against the Plaintiff were set-off within KRW 31 million. Since the Plaintiff expressed his intention of set-off through the instant complaint, compulsory execution based on the judgment on the lawsuit claiming the return of deposit should be rejected. 2) The Defendant delayed the payment of the rent during the lease period, and calculated the interest on the overdue rent in accordance with the lease contract, the amount of KRW 93,773,280 as of January 31, 2013 is KRW 93,773,280.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is a claim for interest in arrears through a preparatory document dated June 13, 2016.