1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,471,095 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from November 15, 2014 to May 13, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 29, 201, the Defendant: (a) leased each of the instant sub-leases (hereinafter “the instant sub-leases”); (b) on June 29, 201, the Defendant sold the two-storys in the instant restaurant to the Plaintiff for KRW 5 million, KRW 2.5 million per month, KRW 30 million per month, KRW 30 million per month, and the sublease period, from June 29, 2011 to November 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant sub-leases”); and (c) sold all of the instant stuffs in the instant restaurant to the Plaintiff at KRW 20 million (hereinafter “instant facility sales contract”).

B. On June 29, 201, the date of sub-lease contract, the Plaintiff paid to each Defendant KRW 10 million on June 29, 201, KRW 15 million on July 10, 201, and KRW 30 million on July 11, 201.

The security deposit, premium, and facility trading price stated in the subsection were fully paid.

C. Meanwhile, as to the premium portion in the instant sub-lease contract made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the said sub-lease agreement states as follows: “The Defendant paid the premium to the building owner for five years at the time of occupancy, and the Defendant was to receive the premium at the time of the expiration of the contract period (Provided, That the premium shall not be paid in case of the formation of a re-contract).”

On November 30, 2013, the Plaintiff delivered the instant restaurant to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 8, Eul evidence 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for the refund of deposit

A. The fact that the sub-lease contract of this case was terminated on November 30, 2013 by the expiration of the period is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 5 million of the deposit and the statutory damages for delay.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts liability for damages arising from the Defendant’s tort, but in light of the circumstances in which the Defendant delivered a lease contract with D, a lessor, to the Plaintiff when concluding the sub-lease contract.