1. The Defendant’s KRW 16 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from August 8, 2017 to May 24, 2018.

Basic Facts

On April 15, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant with respect to C 103 Dong C 1303 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and KRW 230 million (the remainder KRW 27 million, the remainder payment of KRW 27 million, May 25, 2017), and the lease agreement between May 25, 2017 and February 24, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 23 million.

The Plaintiff was planned to return KRW 220,000,000 as the deposit for the lease of the instant lease agreement with respect to the apartment located in Dong-si, Dong-si, Dong-si, through which he had resided, and to pay KRW 220,000,000 as the deposit for the instant lease agreement. However, on May 24, 2017, the Plaintiff made telephone communications to the effect that, on May 25, 2017, a licensed real estate agent who arranged the instant lease agreement was unable to receive a director as the instant apartment as of May 25, 2017, as the date stipulated in the instant lease agreement was not prepared.

The defendant was living in the apartment of this case at the time. Around May 25, 2017, the plaintiff planned to receive the lease deposit from the plaintiff and pay the money as the lease deposit of the Busan F apartment located in Busan F apartment that the director decided around May 25, 2017. However, as the plaintiff could not receive any balance from the plaintiff, the lease deposit for the above apartment was created through loan,

On June 5, 2017, the Defendant sent the content-certified mail containing a declaration of intent to cancel the instant lease agreement, which reaches the Plaintiff on June 12, 2017.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of Gap’s 1 through 11, Eul’s 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the witness E’s testimony, and the entire argument of the parties concerned is illegal without the peremptory notice, but the Plaintiff’s receipt of the balance provided by the Plaintiff on June 22, 2017.