1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On January 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant for use (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the content that the Defendant would use the part of the first floor, which the Defendant used as a carpet, among the buildings for the fourth floor neighborhood living facilities of Mapo-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) on which the voluntary auction procedure is in progress, for each share of Sundays from February 28, 2014 to February 27, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to bear KRW 15 million out of the class of the class of the first floor, and paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant at the human test expense.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on January 22, 2014 on the condition that the part of the second floor of the instant building is to be leased by the Defendant from the Defendant during the lease deposit period of KRW 250 million, and from February 28, 2014 to February 27, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the down payment of KRW 50 million out of the lease deposit is to be paid on January 22, 2014 and the intermediate payment of KRW 10 million on February 10, 2014. The remainder of KRW 80 million out of the remainder of the lease deposit of KRW 100,000 shall be substituted by the Defendant’s acceptance of the Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit to D, which is inhabited by leasing the said part of the said second floor, and the remainder of KRW 20 million was to be paid later upon consultation with the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

On January 22, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a down payment of KRW 50 million and an intermediate payment of KRW 100 million on February 10, 2014, respectively, according to the instant lease agreement.

C. However, the Plaintiff did not take over the Defendant’s obligation to refund the lease deposit to D upon the lapse of February 28, 2014, which was the date of the remainder payment under the instant lease agreement, on the grounds that the auction procedure is in progress regarding the instant building, and that it is difficult to recover the deposit due to the higher priority over the Plaintiff’s debt than the instant real estate, and sought the Defendant to cancel the instant lease agreement and the loan for use.