1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 as well as annual 5% from April 10, 2015 to November 3, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

On December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant with respect to Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul and D apartment 506 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

- From February 5, 2015 to February 4, 2017 - From February 5, 2017, - KRW 100 million for a deposit, KRW 6 million for a month of rent - KRW 10 million for a down payment (payment on a contract basis) and the remainder of KRW 90 million (payment at the time of occupancy on February 5, 2015) - Before the lessee (the Plaintiff) pays any remainder to the lessor (the Defendant), the lessor shall compensate for an amount equal to the down payment, and the lessee may waive the down payment and rescind the instant lease.

B. The Defendant did not deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff by February 5, 2015, which was the occupancy date, due to the ownership dispute over the instant apartment between Dongin F and F.

C. On February 4, 2015, the Defendant returned the instant lease deposit KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion caused damages to KRW 5.7 million in directors’ expenses, KRW 3 million in storage, and KRW 49,220,410 in total, and KRW 57,920,410 in accommodation expenses, due to nonperformance under the instant lease agreement.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 28,134,227 won and damages for delay.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 1 through 7 of the judgment of the court below, the fact that the plaintiff was damaged by the total sum of KRW 57,700,000,000,000,000 for director's and warehouse storage, 3,000,000,000 for hotel accommodation, and 57,920,410,000 for hotel accommodation due to the non-performance of obligation

However, the following circumstances revealed by the above facts and the evidence revealed, namely, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to move into the apartment of this case before February 5, 2015, which was the occupancy date.