1. The defendant's delivery of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. D and E from the plaintiff at the same time, 170,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), setting the term of lease from June 24, 2015 to June 23, 2017, and KRW 170 million as security deposit (hereinafter “instant security deposit”), and paid the said security deposit to the Defendant around that time.

B. On May 30, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement.

C. On the other hand, on June 8, 2017, C, the husband of the Defendant, prepared and delivered a letter of promise to pay KRW 100 million out of the instant deposit to the Plaintiff until September 30, 2017, and promised to pay interest for the remaining deposit KRW 70 million until the return thereof.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff decided to deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant by September 30, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant lease agreement was terminated on June 24, 2017 by notifying the Plaintiff of the rejection of renewal, and that the Defendant is obligated to pay the instant deposit and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

In the event of notification of refusal to renew only the lessee, the lessee may notify the lessor of refusal to renew the lease at least one month prior to the termination of the lease contract, and if the lessee fails to notify the refusal to renew the lease within the said period, the lessee shall be deemed to have renewed the lease under the same conditions as the former lease at the expiration of the lease term (Article 6 of the Housing Lease Protection Act). However, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of refusal to renew the lease on May 30, 2017, which is within one month from June 24, 2017 when the lease contract of this case was terminated, and thus, the said notification cannot be deemed to have the validity of refusal to renew the lease.