1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from November 1, 2014 to December 29, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant under which the deposit amount is KRW 50,000,000 for the lease deposit from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2016, with respect to the 5th floor E (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the D Building owned by the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid the deposit amount to the Defendant.

Although the lease contract cannot be cancelled until September 30, 2015 under the above contract, it is possible to cancel the lease contract if it is notified in writing 60 days thereafter.

B. The Plaintiff entered into an insurance agency contract with Nonparty F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

F For the purpose of supporting the Plaintiff, an insurance agency, and securing its claim for return, the F prepared a lease agreement with the Defendant on October 31, 2014 with respect to the instant real estate that was already leased by the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant on the same day.

C. Even after the preparation of the above contract, F notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease agreement on May 2, 2016, while allowing the Plaintiff to continue to use the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff completed the restoration work by June 26, 2016 and ordered the Defendant to order the instant real estate.

Although the Defendant returned the lease deposit to F, the lease deposit that the Plaintiff paid at the time of the initial lease is not returned.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence A1 to 12, evidence B to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, immediately after concluding a lease agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid the full amount of the deposit, the Defendant drafted a lease agreement with F for the same object in duplicate with the lessee, and also received the lease deposit in duplicate. It is reasonable to view that the contractual lessee changes the lessee from the Plaintiff to F and the Plaintiff agreed explicitly with the Plaintiff and F to return the lease deposit already paid by the Plaintiff.