1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and the part of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C (hereinafter “instant building”) with the term of KRW 60,000,000 and the term of lease of KRW 2 years.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Upon the expiration of the lease term, the Defendant delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff on May 30, 2012, and the Plaintiff returned the lease deposit amount of KRW 60 million to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff asserts that although the defendant paid only KRW 50 million out of the lease deposit of KRW 60 million, the plaintiff returned the amount of KRW 60 million by mistake, the defendant should return the difference to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant should return the difference of KRW 10 million.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that he paid the lease deposit of KRW 60 million and received the return of KRW 60 million after the expiration of the lease term.

3. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the statement No. 3 and the response to the order to submit financial transaction information to the Seoul Livestock Industry Cooperatives in this court, as a result of the Defendant’s response to the order to submit financial transaction information, namely, D’s entry into the instant lease agreement under the Defendant’s name and resided in the instant building; D’s entry into the instant lease agreement with the real estate broker at the time, and paid the instant lease deposit upon the return of the lease deposit amount of KRW 70 million at the place where the former resided; the Defendant stated that the lease deposit was paid at the presence of the broker; the Defendant paid the down payment of KRW 6 million and the remainder of KRW 54 million at the real estate broker’s office at the remainder payment date; the Plaintiff also recognized that the Plaintiff received KRW 50 million at the real estate broker’s office at the remainder payment date. However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it appears that the Plaintiff’s residence without entering into the lease agreement or without paying the lease deposit in full