1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 15, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant housing”) on behalf of Korea-China Housing Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea-China Housing”) regarding the lease term from September 30, 201 to September 29, 2013; and the lease deposit amount of KRW 60 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the lessor, the Defendant, the lessee, or the Plaintiff from December 26, 2013 to December 25, 2014 regarding the instant housing, which is KRW 60 million from December 26, 2013 to December 25, 2014. The special agreement states that “this agreement shall be executed by proxy by the Defendant on behalf of the lessor on behalf of the lessor.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On December 26, 2013, which was three months after the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant was obligated to pay 60 million won to the Plaintiff for the lease deposit, on the ground that the Plaintiff, as evidence, had to return the lease deposit directly due to internal relations with the Korea-China Housing on December 26, 2013.

B. The Defendant merely entered into the instant lease agreement as an agent of the Han-gu Housing, and the instant lease agreement was only prepared by the Plaintiff, a Korean national in China, necessary for the issuance of a visa that the Plaintiff was able to stay in the Republic of Korea, and did not mean that the Defendant would return the lease deposit directly.

3. In light of the following circumstances, the above evidence and the witness witness D’s testimony, the Defendant, solely based on the instant lease agreement, was liable to the Plaintiff for the return of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement.