The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff's claim added by this court is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Summary of the cause of claim;

A. The Defendant leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million (no monthly rent) to the Plaintiff as the lease deposit amount (hereinafter “instant store”) and the lease deposit amount of KRW 24,00,000 from December 22, 2015, the Defendant did not refund the remainder of the lease deposit, excluding KRW 5,000,000,000,000, even after the contract was terminated.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to refund the remaining lease deposit to the plaintiff KRW 45 million.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant denies the conclusion of the above lease contract at the trial. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the remainder of the unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 45 million, excluding the five million already returned to the Plaintiff, and to pay damages for delay from April 1, 2017 to the day of full payment.

The plaintiff shall file an additional claim with the return of the deposit for lease at the trial of the party.

2. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 regarding the claim for return of lease deposit and all pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff agreed to lease the store of this case from the defendant around October 16, 2015, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million and the lease term of KRW 24 months from December 22, 2015, and the defendant paid KRW 30 million on October 16, 2015, respectively, and the lease contract for the said store was terminated as of October 23, 2015.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the store of this case was not leased to the plaintiff at the time, and that at the time the spouse made a contract at will, but the following circumstances, i.e., the defendant's seal affixed to the lessor's column of lease contract (Evidence A4) are true (see, e.g., the protocol of pleading as of May 20, 200), and ii).