1.The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim).

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of lease deposit with the principal lawsuit, and the Defendant filed a claim for the delivery of a building as a counterclaim. The first instance court dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim among them, and partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal lawsuit.

Since the plaintiff appealed against this, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for the return of the lease deposit, which is the principal claim of the plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the contents of Gap evidence 1 to 3 and the whole purport of the pleadings.

1) On July 9, 2003, the Plaintiff set the lease deposit amount of KRW 21 million and the term of lease from July 9, 2003 to July 8, 2005 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) for the former owner C of the instant building and the instant building.

(2) After concluding the lease contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 21 million to C, and received delivery of the instant building. (2) At that time, the Plaintiff completed the fixed date and move-in report on the instant lease contract. The Defendant purchased the instant building from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on December 28, 2004.

3. On Aug. 2, 2005, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document evidencing that “The Defendant, who succeeded to the lessor status of the instant lease, demanded the termination of the lease due to the expiration of the lease term on Jul. 9, 2005, but the Defendant directly sought the lessee, and was posting a free daily newspaper and posting a poster several times on several occasions by deeming that the Plaintiff would directly seek the lessee. The Plaintiff demanded the return of the lease deposit amount of KRW 21 million and the water rate of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,00

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, as the assignee of the instant building, succeeded to the lessor status of the instant lease agreement, was subject to the termination of the instant lease agreement.