1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 60,000,000.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

Facts of recognition

On June 17, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting forth 408 units of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul building 70,000,000, and the term of lease from June 20, 2013 to June 19, 2015.

After that, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to change the term of the above lease from June 27, 2013 to June 26, 2015, the deposit amount of KRW 60,000,000. The Plaintiff paid 60,000 to the Defendant by June 24, 2013.

The Plaintiff, from March 2015, before the expiration of the above lease term, notified the Defendant’s employees of the Defendant that there was no intention to renew the lease contract, and requested the Defendant to return the deposit amount of KRW 60,000,000 as of June 26, 2015.

The defendant did not return the deposit to the plaintiff even after June 26, 2015, which is the expiration date of the lease term.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap’s 1 through 7 (including each number if there is a serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant has expired on June 26, 2015, and the defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 60,000,000 to the plaintiff.

The defendant alleged that the plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the remaining payment date and the amount of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, and that the plaintiff did not receive notice of termination of the contract from the plaintiff, but the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to change the amount of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis as seen earlier. In full view of the respective statements and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff sent from March 2015 to the employee of the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office operated by the defendant several times without the intention to renew the lease contract. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff notified the defendant of the termination of the contract on March 2015.