1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 16, Eul evidence Nos. 18-1, and Eul evidence Nos. 18-2, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on February 1, 2010 with respect to the lease deposit Nos. 1,00,000 won for the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Branch Office Nos. 201 (hereinafter "the office of this case") and the lease deposit term, from February 16, 2010 to February 15, 201, and then paid a lease deposit of KRW 1,00,000 to the defendant at the time. The plaintiff and the defendant have renewed the above lease agreement each year under the same conditions, and the plaintiff may request the defendant to return the lease deposit to the defendant on January 20, 2015 by taking it out to the office of this case.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the above lease agreement was terminated on February 15, 2015 and that the Plaintiff transferred the office of this case to the Defendant on February 16, 2015. However, according to the above facts of recognition, the above lease agreement was terminated on April 20, 2015 after February 15, 2015, which is the expiration date by agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the date of delivery. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) The Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay from April 28, 2015, the following day after the Plaintiff delivered the instant office to the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, even if the documents attached to the preparatory documents submitted by the Plaintiff on August 25, 2016, which was the date of the closing of argument in the trial.

2. The defendant.