1. The Defendant, along with the delivery of No. 602 of the sixth floor of the building C in Gwangju Northern-gu from the Plaintiff, simultaneously with the Plaintiff 63 million won.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) the deposit amount of KRW 70 million with respect to No. 602 of the sixth floor of the Gwangju North-gu C building owned by the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) the same year for the period.

2. The instant lease agreement was concluded between February 25, 201 and February 25, 2017, and had resided in the instant real estate.

B. On the date of concluding the instant lease agreement, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the Defendant setting the price of KRW 100 million for the instant real estate with the Maritime Affairs Corporation (hereinafter “Maritime Affairs”).

On the other hand, the above sales contract was cancelled under the agreement around May 16, 2015 because the purchaser was unable to pay the purchase price at the time.

C. The Plaintiff received 7 million won out of the above lease deposit until now.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 or 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the obligation to return the lease deposit has expired, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the lease deposit (=70 million won - 7 million won) to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) argues that the parties to the instant lease agreement are only the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not a lessor. In addition, the Defendant asserts that there is no receipt of the lease deposit from the Plaintiff. 2) In concluding the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not sign or seal the contract (Evidence A) prepared at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million out of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted earlier, the Defendant is a party to the instant lease agreement.