1. The Defendant’s KRW 42,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 5, 2013 to February 13, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' arguments and issues

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As to the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of the absence of the obligation to return the lease deposit, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s claim for confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation to return the lease deposit are the instant building located in Sejong-si owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”).

(1) As to the lease deposit, KRW 100,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000, lease term is from August 1, 2007 to the sale and purchase of the instant building (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

(B) The Plaintiff entered into a lease deposit, and the payment of the said lease deposit is the Defendant’s wife E and F forest land in Yongnam-gun and F forest (hereinafter “instant forest”).

(2) The Plaintiff decided to substitute the payment of KRW 100,000,000 out of the purchase price of KRW 200,000,000 as to the forest of this case. Although the Plaintiff had already paid KRW 200,000,000 to D on October 18, 206, it was erroneous that D remains liable for KRW 100,000,000 out of the purchase price of the forest of this case as to the forest of this case. As such, the Plaintiff agreed to substitute the payment of KRW 100,000,000 out of the above purchase price with the Defendant at the time of the lease contract of this case for the payment of KRW 100,00,000 among the above 10,000,000,000 among the above purchase price. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of KRW 100,000,000,00 for the lease deposit of this case was 10,000,000.