1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants ordering payment in excess of the following amount.

Basic Facts

In order to operate the Gohapdo, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with respect to the third floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the buildings F-5th floor in Busan Metropolitan City, with respect to the lease deposit amounting to KRW 20 million from October 2002, and KRW 400,000,000 monthly rent, and two years from the lease term, which is the former owner.

The Defendants are co-owners who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the above five-story building on February 12, 2015 with respect to their wife and children.

On August 27, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, who represented by the Defendants, with the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 650,000 (payment on August 27, 2016), from August 27, 2016 to August 27, 2018.

(A) Evidence No. 3, hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease agreement was terminated, and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendants on October 17, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff asserted the following facts: (a) the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the video of Nos. 6 (including the number of branch numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings; and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, as to July 17, 2017, the instant lease agreement was terminated on October 17, 2017 by declaring the Defendants’ termination pursuant to Article 3 subparag. 2 of the instant lease agreement.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to refund KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff the lease deposit of this case.

Pursuant to Article 6(4) of the instant lease agreement, the Defendants received the lease deposit from a new lessee, and there is no reason to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit immediately after the termination or termination of the instant lease agreement.

Since the lease contract of this case was terminated on August 27, 2018 due to the expiration of the term, it must be deducted from the lease deposit that the plaintiff is unpaid.

The Plaintiff is a lease agreement of this case.