1. The Defendant’s KRW 140,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 20, 2019 to December 9, 2019, and the following.

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or the following facts can be acknowledged according to the purport of Gap's statements and the whole arguments.

① On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant with respect to the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City C Building D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the lease deposit amounting to KRW 140 million and the lease period from July 31, 2017 to July 30, 2018.

② The term of the above lease was renewed until July 30, 2019, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the repayment of the deposit upon the expiration of the term one month prior to the expiration of the said term.

③ On July 30, 2019, the Defendant did not refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff even after the said lease contract was terminated. On November 19, 2019, the Plaintiff handed over the instant real estate to the Defendant.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the lease deposit of KRW 140 million and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 20, 2019 to December 9, 2019 and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, which is clear that the plaintiff's delivery of the real estate of this case to the defendant from November 20, 2019 to the day of delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the defendant.

2. As to the determination of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since the Defendant filed an individual rehabilitation application with the Busan District Court 2019da68, but there is no evidence to prove that the decision to commence the individual rehabilitation procedure was made by the date of closing the argument

In this case, where a lawsuit on individual rehabilitation claims is already filed prior to the commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures, such litigation may be conducted and the proviso of Article 600(1)3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act shall be applied.