1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 75 million and the interest rate of 20% per annum from September 24, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, on April 4, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) leased a room of 2.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the housing of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, with the lease deposit of KRW 75 million and the lease deposit of KRW 75 million from May 31, 2012 to 24 months (hereinafter “instant lease contract”); and (b) returned the instant real estate after completing the move-in report on May 30, 2012; (c) the Plaintiff demanded the return of the lease deposit by disclosing that the Defendant had no intent to renew the lease; (d) the Plaintiff refused the lease deposit by obtaining the lease registration from the court on June 13, 2014 (the court’s order of lease registration) and the Plaintiff completed the lease registration on the instant real estate after completing the lease lease registration.

7. 9. A move-in report shall be completed with Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and four floors, and the fact that the real estate in this case was delivered at that time may be recognized respectively;

B. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the term, the Defendant, a lessor of real estate, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the lease deposit amounting to KRW 75 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 24, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, sought by the Plaintiff after the delivery date of the real estate of this case.

2. The defendant's defense alleged to the effect that the defendant spent 2.5 million won expenses for interior works on the wind that violates the duty to restore the real estate of this case to its original state. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone cannot be deemed to have been attributable to the failure of the plaintiff to restore to its original state, and it was damaged by remote areas and plates due to water leakage in the housing of this case, and the expenses incurred in replacing them.