1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On October 19, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) leased a house of three-story C Ground C with a deposit of KRW 50 million for a period of KRW 24 months from the Defendant; (b) around that time, the Plaintiff paid the full amount of the deposit to the Defendant; (c) while the said lease was maintained by implied renewal after the expiration of the lease term, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease contract on or around June 16, 2017, is not a dispute between the parties.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on September 16, 2017 after the expiration of the three months period prescribed by the Housing Lease Protection Act from the date when the termination of the contract was notified by the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff.

3. The defendant's defense is asserted to the effect that the defendant does not have a duty to return the deposit directly to the plaintiff, since there is a special agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the new lessee should pay the deposit to the defendant in the manner that the plaintiff would receive the deposit.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the contract prepared at the time of the instant lease agreement states that "if a director takes place in lieu of raising rent, barring any special circumstances, the lessee will receive the deposit for lease on a deposit basis from the next person." This is a special agreement that the plaintiff, a lessee, seeks a new lessee to lease the house with his own effort and then the new lessee receives the deposit for lease from the plaintiff.