1. The case between the Defendant and the Seoul Southern District Court on April 22, 2013 (2013Kadan7190) is that the deposit is returned.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 16, 2009, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on July 16, 2009, setting the deposit amount of KRW 70 million, and up to September 4, 2012, the period for which the Defendant owned the D Building No. 02 (hereinafter “instant house”) and completed the move-in report on September 1, 2009.

B. On December 27, 2012, the Defendant obtained the fixed date, and on January 9, 2013, the Defendant registered the right of lease of KRW 70 million on February 1, 2013 upon receipt of the lease registration order by Seoul Southern District Court 2012Kao24 (Seoul Southern District Court).

C. On January 29, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the lease deposit against C (Seoul Southern District Court 2013da7190) and the following adjustment was concluded on April 22, 2013 where the lawsuit was pending.

The actual accounts of C shall be paid to the Defendant KRW 72,50,000 by July 19, 2013.

If C fails to pay all the above money on or before the above date, the actual tax amount shall be paid by adding 10% interest per annum to the remainder of the money, excluding the money paid up until the above amount, from July 20, 2013 to the day of full payment.

The defendant, on March 4, 2013, before the conciliation was concluded, shall move to another place and completed the move-in report.

E. On September 24, 2013, a voluntary auction procedure was initiated upon the application of the Dobong Saemaeul Community Fund, a mortgagee on the instant house, and the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid on February 2015 and paid the price in full.

F. On May 19, 2015, the Defendant received an execution clause by succession from the Plaintiff.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 12-1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) excessive lease deposit, the Yeongdeungpocheon Saemaul Fund operated the loan by manipulating the appraisal of the instant house, the Defendant’s lack of the Defendant’s ability to procure the deposit, and the interest on the loan is overdue immediately after C delays.