1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant under which the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 104 Dong 1503 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with a deposit amount of KRW 400 million and the term of lease from July 19, 2014 to July 17, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid a deposit amount of KRW 400 million to the Defendant around that time.

B. The instant lease agreement expired on July 17, 2016, and the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant on August 1, 2016.

C. The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to restore the apartment of this case to its original state due to its damage to the scam board, the floor, even door, even, the crime prevention window, the wall, etc., of the apartment of this case, and only the remaining security deposit of KRW 397 million was returned to the Plaintiff on the same day.

As the Plaintiff failed to restore the apartment to its original state until the time when the new lessee of the apartment house of this case moves into the original state, the Defendant returned 650,000 won remaining after deducting 2,350,000 won from the remaining deposit amount of KRW 3 million on August 17, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for payment of the unclaimed deposit amount of KRW 3 million.

The defendant asserts that the defendant has returned all the remainder after deducting the cost of restoration from the cost of restoration.

In light of the above facts and the evidence adopted earlier, the plaintiff agreed to recover the apartment of this case at the time of termination of the lease agreement at the time of the lease agreement at this case, but did not properly implement it, and it can be acknowledged that the defendant returned to the plaintiff the remainder after deducting 2.35 million won for the restoration of the original state. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.