1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,00,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from October 12, 2018 to January 9, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 12, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with respect to the second floor E (hereinafter “instant building”) of the building D in Suwon-gu, Busan, under which the lease deposit is KRW 50 million, monthly rent is KRW 17 million, and the lease term is July 31, 2013, and operated the frequency of the instant building.

B. After purchasing the instant building from C on July 31, 201, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff with the said terms and conditions, and then renewed the said contract (monthly rent is increased to KRW 1.9 million). On July 31, 2018, the term of lease expired.

C. Upon the termination of the above lease agreement, the Plaintiff discontinued the business of the instant building and delivered the building to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) Inasmuch as the lease term of the Plaintiff’s building has expired, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million and KRW 30 million, which is part of the premium and indoor interior interior interior interior interior interior interior expenses, and damages for delay thereof.

(2) In the event that the Defendant Plaintiff’s interior interior interior decoration does not bring about objective convenience in the use of the building, but for the collection and operation of the Plaintiff’s frequency, the cost cannot be the subject of the claim for beneficial expenses, and the Defendant did not interfere with the Plaintiff’s opportunity to recover the premium, and therefore, the claim for the premium is without merit.

In addition, the cost of restitution equivalent to KRW 10 million should be deducted from the lease deposit of this case.

B. We examined the judgment, and the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff increases the objective value of the building of this case through the Plaintiff’s expense disbursement.

It is difficult to recognize that the Defendant interfered with the opportunity to recover the premium against the Plaintiff, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, above.