1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked:

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 1, 2015, the Plaintiff leased a lease deposit of KRW 20,00,000 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant on the 2nd floor in Yangsan-si, Yangyang-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”), KRW 800,000 per rent, and KRW 1 year from November 1, 2015 during the lease term (hereinafter “the instant lease”), and operated a sufficient processing plant.

B. While the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued to maintain the lease relationship under the instant lease agreement even after the termination of the instant lease agreement, around October 2018, the instant lease agreement was terminated, and the Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant on January 10, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Discharge of obligation to return deposit;

A. In light of the above facts, since the above lease contract was terminated, the defendant is obligated to return the remaining security deposit to the plaintiff after deducting the unpaid fee from KRW 20,000,000.

B. As of December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 7,351,013 [7,617,679 won - 266,666 won - 80,000 x 10/30 days] to the Plaintiff as of December 31, 2018. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff has to deduct the above amount since the Plaintiff failed to pay a total of KRW 15,795,134 won, such as overdue rent, etc. as indicated in the separate sheet. 2) First of all, as alleged by the Plaintiff, as to whether the Defendant agreed to pay the remainder of KRW 7,617,679 as of December 31, 2018 after subtracting the overdue rent, etc. from the leased deposit, the Defendant has no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

However, the above evidence No. 3 (the fact that the defendant prepared is recognized).