1. The Defendant’s KRW 235,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual interest from May 13, 2018 to September 5, 2018, and the following.

Facts of recognition

On May 12, 2016, the Plaintiff leased Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Building D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) the lease deposit amount of KRW 235 million from May 12, 2016 to May 12, 2018 (the contract was drafted retrospectively as of March 19, 2016). The Plaintiff agreed to lease the instant real estate from E, F, and G on March 19, 2016, and thereafter the Defendant purchased the instant real estate from the said E, etc. (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and the said lease deposit was fully paid by May 12, 2016.

On March 1, 2018, the Plaintiff resided in the instant real estate upon delivery, and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] According to the fact that there is no dispute, each of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the lease contract in this case was terminated on May 12, 2018.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until September 5, 2018, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation to pay the said lease deposit, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the day of full payment, after the expiry of the term of validity (the Plaintiff claimed payment of damages for delay from May 12, 2018, the expiration date of the term of validity), but the Defendant’s delayed liability arises from the day following the expiration date of the term of validity.

As to this, the defendant asserts that he did not have the obligation to refund the lease deposit to the plaintiff until he seeks a new lessee. However, as long as the term of lease expires (the plaintiff had returned the real estate of this case before it), it is regardless of whether he sought a new lessee.