1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 70,000,000.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 10, 2012, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) No. 501 (hereinafter “instant building”) of the building Nos. 1, 501 (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant, which was set from April 30, 2012, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 70 million, and from April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70 million to the Defendant.

B. On January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease agreement was terminated by content-certified mail, and the said content-certified mail reached the Defendant on the 15th of the same month.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant lease contract was renewed on April 29, 2014, which was the expiration date of the lease term under Article 6 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, with the lease term of two years as of April 29, 2014.

However, according to Article 6-2 of the same Act, if the lease is renewed as above, the lessee can notify at any time of termination, and the lease is terminated three months after the lessor is notified of such termination. Since the Plaintiff’s content-certified mail that terminates the instant lease reaches the Defendant on January 15, 2015, it shall be deemed that the instant lease contract was terminated on April 15, 2015 after three months from the termination.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff according to the instant lease agreement.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.