1. The Defendant’s KRW 98,886,667 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 8, 2016 to April 27, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 30, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on 10,000,000 lease deposit, monthly rent of KRW 1,00,000, and the delivery date of lease deposit (delivery until December 27, 2002) with respect to 101 (hereinafter “instant store”) from among the 6-story neighborhood living facilities and multi-household dwelling in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, which are owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant store”), and operated a restaurant in the instant store with the trade name “D” (On the other hand, the instant store has been registered for preservation of ownership on January 13, 2003), and thereafter the said lease agreement continued to be renewed on 10,000,000,000,000 monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000,000,000,000,0000 from June 27, 2014, including the lease deposit amount of KRW 16,36,015,5,006.

B. The instant lease agreement terminated on June 26, 2015, and the Defendant, on July 10, 2015, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the delivery of the instant store (this Court Decision 2015Da121919). On August 17, 2016, the court rendered a ruling that “the Plaintiff would receive KRW 100 million from the Defendant and deliver the instant store to the Defendant at the same time,” and the said ruling became final and conclusive on September 13, 2016.

C. Since September 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a letter of completion of withdrawal from the store of this case as of September 19, 2016, stating that “The refund of the instant lease deposit was changed due to the completion of withdrawal from the store of this case on or around September 19, 2016.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence No. 3-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 8, 22, 30, and 33, and the purport of the whole pleadings.