1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and went to another place at 20 days, and the Defendant agreed to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff sought 500,000 won as the lease deposit and damages for delay against the Defendant.

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff unilaterally violated the lease contract concluded with the defendant and the director is not reasonable to refund the lease deposit to the plaintiff.

2. On August 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a condition that part of the instant housing unit C (hereinafter referred to as “instant housing”) on a deposit for lease deposit of KRW 500,000, monthly rent of KRW 100,000, and the lease term of KRW 2 years (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). around that time, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit to the Defendant. The Plaintiff resided in the instant housing after being transferred the instant housing from the Defendant around September 15, 2013, and had no dispute between directors around September 15, 2013.

In addition, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the parties or by comprehensively taking into account the entries in the evidence No. 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, that is, the plaintiff demanded the return of the lease deposit to the defendant as a director at another place on September 15, 2013 and demanded the return of the lease deposit several times thereafter, the defendant did not demand the plaintiff to pay the lease deposit under the contract of this case even though the plaintiff resided at a place that is not far away from the defendant's domicile after the director, although the plaintiff resided at the defendant's residence after the director, and when the defendant found the plaintiff and returned the lease deposit from the preparatory document dated December 11, 2015 when the plaintiff "if the plaintiff found the plaintiff's director only first and then returned the lease deposit, the defendant would return the remaining amount after deducting 100,000 won from the lease deposit if the plaintiff had done so within five months."