1. The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, KRW 120 million to the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant on February 10, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant housing”) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) during which deposit amount is KRW 130 million and the period from March 30, 201 to March 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and the fact that the Plaintiff paid the said lease deposit and resided in the instant housing from March 30, 201 to March 30, 2011 is no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination on the claim for refund of deposit for lease on a deposit basis

A. The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the cause of the claim was the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant expressed that it did not intend to renew each contract by serving the certificate No. 21, and the instant lease contract was terminated on March 30, 2015.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of KRW 130 million.

B. The Defendant’s defense (i) asserts that the Defendant had already returned KRW 10 million out of the deposit previously, and thus, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements Nos. 3 and 8 as to the evidence Nos. 3 and 8, the Defendant can be found to have returned KRW 10 million out of the deposit previously paid to the Plaintiff on October 18, 201, and thus, the Defendant’s defense is with merit.

Therefore, the deposit to be returned by the defendant is KRW 120 million.

The Plaintiff asserts that the said KRW 10 million was paid as damages for leakage damages incurred on July 20, 201, but this is not consistent with the Plaintiff’s statement No. 3 ( “10 million won for full-time return”), and it is difficult to accept it, as it is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s statement No. 3 (hereinafter “full-time return”).

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the foregoing entry is “compensation for damage on the basis of KRW 10,000,000,000, which the Plaintiff shall receive pursuant to Article 7 of the instant lease contract,” but it is difficult to interpret the said entry as such in light of the language and text of the foregoing. The Defendant can respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until the transfer of the instant house