1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,624,814 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 10, 2015 to May 17, 2016, and the next day.

1. The Defendant, on May 7, 2014, leased to C a deposit of KRW 102,30,00, monthly rent of KRW 4,000, and two years, respectively. The Plaintiff acquired a claim for the refund of deposit on May 26, 2014 and notified the Defendant of the transfer at that time; the Defendant notified the lessee of the termination on July 11, 2014; and there is no dispute over the termination of the lease; barring any special circumstance, the Defendant should pay KRW 94,80,000,000, less than the deposit of KRW 75,50,000,000,000, which is the sum of the deposit of KRW 4,000,000,000,000 from the deposit of the Plaintiff as the person who was entitled to the credit.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the following grounds arising after the notice of transfer was given to the Plaintiff cannot be set up against the Plaintiff, the transferee of the deposit, regardless of the existence of liability to the lessee. However, the lease deposit is to secure all the claims that the lessor may claim against the lessee, such as the right to claim compensation for the overdue rent or rent of the leased object, which the lessor may claim against the lessee, even after the lease termination and the return of the leased object is attributable to the lessee even after the return was received. This nature of the deposit is to only change only to the executor of the right to claim the return even if the right to claim the return of the deposit is transferred. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion contrary thereto is without merit.

Recognizing the fact that a lessee in an amount of damages equivalent to the rent from June 16, 2015 to June 12, 2015 sold fake petroleum products and subsequently discovered them again on August 12, 2014 and was subject to a disposition suspending business from September 17, 2014 to June 16, 2015 (B). Thus, the lessor has caused unprofitable damage during the suspension period of business.