The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 180 million, and from August 13, 2015, the lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 180 million, and from August 13, 2015, and paid the deposit money to the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant of a multi-party with the expiration of the lease term “if the lease term expires, to return the security deposit to another place.”

On June 25, 2017, the Defendant proposed that the Plaintiff would not have any way because it had no house and no money, and that the Plaintiff would not have the house taken over.” The Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff that it had already entered into a pre-sale agreement for the apartment that the Plaintiff had already been a director’s house.

C. From July 23, 2017 to August 11, 2017, the Plaintiff continuously stated that “the director must return the deposit to the Defendant at any time,” and that if the deposit is not received, the Plaintiff is required to waive the down payment of the apartment house for the director, but the Defendant could not return the deposit on the ground that “the apartment is not subject to any refund due to the lack of apartment.”

On June 28, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) demanded the Defendant to return the deposit by sending content-certified mail; (b) known that “the remainder of other apartment buildings shall be paid upon receiving the deposit for a deposit for a deposit for a deposit; and (c) attached the lease contract on June 20, 2017 entered into with E; and (d) if the Plaintiff fails to pay the balance by August 15, 2017, by sending content-certified mail similar to that on August 14, 2017, it would incur enormous damage.

The term "high-standing" was emphasized.

E. The Defendant did not return the deposit to the Plaintiff even after the expiration of the lease term, and the Defendant did not return the deposit continuously, and the Plaintiff appears to have followed the procedures for civil and compulsory auction separately.

The plaintiff is not a director, and E.