1. The defendant shall pay KRW 160,000 to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1-1, 2, and 3 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on April 11, 2016 with respect to No. 160 million won as to No. 3 of Mapo-gu Seoul building D, Seoul, which is owned by the Defendant, and the period until April 30, 2018, and paid a deposit of KRW 160 million to the Defendant around that time. After that time, the Plaintiff entered into the said lease agreement with the Defendant on April 19, 2018, and the period shall be the same as the deposit for the above building with the Defendant, and it is recognized that the said lease agreement was concluded for the extension period until April 30, 2019.

According to the above facts, the above lease contract between the original defendant has expired, and the defendant is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 160 million to the plaintiff.

2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is alleged to have made an oral promise to meet the Plaintiff at home and extend the lease contract for the above building for one year prior to the house around March 22, 2019, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement Nos. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff is only recognized as having requested the Defendant to continue to refund the lease deposit from January 2019 to April 2019.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.