1. The Defendant’s delivery of real estate stated in the attached list from A to the Plaintiff at the same time.

1. Indication and judgment of the claim

A. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties, and each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a serial number, if any), it is recognized that the grounds for the attached claim are stated. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return KRW 90,000,000, which corresponds to the claims for the return of lease deposit

B. As to this, the defendant argues that only the balance of various debts (public charges, delinquent rents, delinquent charges, etc.) that A bears to the defendant under a lease agreement between the defendant and the defendant as to the real estate stated in the attached list shall be returned, and that A shall deliver the above real estate to the defendant and the balance deposit shall also be returned.

On March 31, 2011, the two-year period stipulated in the instant lease agreement is irrelevant to whether or not there has been a renewal of the lease agreement between the defendant and A) and the obligation to deliver real estate listed in the attached list to the defendant as well as the obligation to return the lease deposit to the defendant as well as the obligation to deliver real estate listed in the attached list to the defendant. Meanwhile, the defendant's obligation to return the lease deposit complies with the legal principles and equity principles that deducts all kinds of obligations (public charges, delinquent rents, delinquent charges, etc.) to the defendant under the said lease agreement. Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified only within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.