1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 21, 2006, the Plaintiff agreed to lease No. 402 of Seodaemun-gu Seoul from the Defendant to KRW 30 million, and entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant primary lease contract”). The Plaintiff paid a down payment of KRW 5 million and an intermediate payment of KRW 2 million to the Defendant under the said lease contract, and received each receipt.

(A) Evidence No. 2 1, 2). (b)

On November 27, 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the leased object to 201, the deposit to 37 million won, and entered into a sub-lease agreement with the Defendant on December 1, 2016, setting the down payment and delivery date for the remainder payment and delivery date.

(hereinafter “instant secondary lease contract.” On the same day, the Plaintiff received a receipt (No. 4-2) that received 22 million won as the down payment from the Defendant on the same day, and the Defendant received 22 million won as the down payment even in the said lease contract.

C. Thereafter, on December 11, 2006, the Plaintiff received a receipt from the Defendant to the effect that the Plaintiff received KRW 5 million in part of the intermediate payment of the instant secondary lease contract.

(A) No. 5-1) d.

On January 9, 2007, the Plaintiff received a certificate of borrowing (No. 5-2, hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) from the Defendant to the effect that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20 million as the deposit for the instant secondary lease contract.”

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 to 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is not entitled to receive the leased object due to the exercise of the right of retention, while paying the Defendant a down payment of KRW 22 million among the instant secondary lease deposit, an intermediate payment of KRW 5 million, and KRW 34 million among the first lease deposit. However, if the Defendant paid the remainder deposit of KRW 3 million and additionally lent KRW 17 million, the Plaintiff promised to complete the registration of ownership transfer for the leased object.