1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. In Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, approximately 52 co-owners created a group of 52 co-owners to lease and manage a store. The Defendant, from around 1999 to August 30, 2005, was in office as the chairperson, who is the representative of the Eunpyeong branch, and carried out the duties of lease and management of the store. After that, F was elected as the latter president and carried out the duties of lease and management of the store.

B. On April 30, 2004, the Plaintiff leased D’s total sum of approximately KRW 200,000,000 for the leased deposit KRW 10 million, monthly rent KRW 7 million, and the period from May 20, 2004, and operated the adult dance with the trade name “G” at the same time.

After that, on July 1, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the size of the leased object to 177 square meters, reduced the deposit to 70 million won, and 5.2 million won per month (hereinafter “instant store”); and the Plaintiff was returned from the Defendant the following day the difference of the lease deposit amount to 30 million won.

C. While the Plaintiff was in arrears from July 2005, around September 2005, he transferred G’s business rights to H (Agent I). He transferred G’s business rights to J at that time.

On January 25, 2006, the Plaintiff paid to F a lump sum of KRW 37 million for the rent of approximately seven months that occurred until the date, and F, on January 27, 2006, the Plaintiff leased the instant store to J as of KRW 70 million, monthly rent of KRW 42 million, and the period from February 1, 2006 to January 31, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 10, 11, Eul's Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim

A. (1) The plaintiff alleged in the parties (1) since the lease relationship terminated on January 25, 2006 and delivered the store of this case, the plaintiff, as the lessor, paid the plaintiff a deposit of KRW 70 million and damages for delay from January 26, 2006, which is the day following the store delivery.