1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,500,000 and its ratio shall be 20% per annum from May 16, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the purport of the whole pleadings and the occurrence of penalty liability, Gap-5, and all pleadings.

On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the Defendant regarding the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 402 of the fourth floor (hereinafter “the lease contract of this case”).

The content of the lease deposit is 325 million won, the down payment 22.5 million won out of the deposit is paid at the time of the contract, and the balance is paid on February 19, 2014, and the period from February 19, 2014 to February 18, 2016, and Samsung Electronic is released at the time of the balance of lease deposit 325 million won, which is the person having chonsegwon.

In addition, in the event of nonperformance under the lease contract of this case, the other party may notify the person who has failed to perform the contract of this case in writing and rescind the lease contract of this case.

At this time, the down payment is regarded as penalty.

The Plaintiff paid all remainder to the Defendant due to driving away from the lease contract of this case, and occupied the building, but the right to lease on a deposit basis of Samsung E&M was not cancelled on April 4, 2014.

On April 7, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail demanding the cancellation of the lease contract of this case and the payment of penalty, on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation as above.

Unless there are special circumstances, the Defendant’s failure to cancel the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to perform its duty under the instant lease agreement. Therefore, the Plaintiff may rescind the instant lease agreement

Since the declaration of intention was made to the defendant, the lease contract of this case was lawfully rescinded, and therefore the defendant is liable to pay the penalty under the lease contract of this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Whether the notice of performance is legitimate, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the obligation to cancel the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis, unlike the contract, so the termination of the contract is not legitimate.