1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that on January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit of KRW 17 million (one million in the lease deposit at the time of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 16 million shall be paid as of January 10, 2014), and the lease agreement for the lease of KRW 1,7 million (two years in the lease contract; hereinafter “the lease agreement in this case”) with the Defendant for two years from January 10, 2014 (No. 2; hereinafter “the lease agreement in this case”). On the same day, it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 1 million to the Defendant.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Upon entering into the instant lease agreement on January 9, 2014, Plaintiff 1,70,000 won of the down payment to the Defendant at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant unilaterally refused to transfer the said house by preparing the balance of the deposit on February 28, 2014. As the Defendant violated the instant lease agreement, the instant lease agreement was revoked on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to return the down payment, 1.7 million won of the down payment, which was paid to the original state, and to pay the penalty of KRW 1.7 million under the instant lease agreement.

B. The down payment stipulated in the instant lease contract by the Defendant is KRW 1 million, and the Defendant received one million for the down payment from the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the contract, and the Plaintiff did not comply with the payment date for the remainder of the deposit but did not pay the remainder on February 28, 2014 and demanded to transfer the instant house, and the Defendant returned one million won for the down payment under the instant lease contract to the Plaintiff and agreed on the instant lease.

3. As to the Defendant’s breach of the duty to deliver a house under the instant lease agreement, it is not enough to recognize the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone, and rather, the Defendant’s argument is written in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.