1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 1,800,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 17, 2014 to June 25, 2015.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiff and the Defendant on May 14, 2009: (a) leased deposit amounting to KRW 100,000,000,000 in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu D Apartment 101, and KRW 1101 (hereinafter “instant apartment”); (b) leased the leased deposit amount from the Defendant on June 12, 2009 to June 11, 2011 (hereinafter “the instant lease”); and (c) changed the rent amount from July 201 to KRW 1,00,000 per month; and (d) the Plaintiff returned the apartment deposit from the Defendant around August 2012 to the Defendant on April 301, and (e) the Defendant agreed to receive KRW 50,000,000 from the instant lease deposit and the Defendant’s Intervenor to the Defendant on April 6, 2013.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, while the Defendant did not restore the instant apartment to its original state, the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Plaintiff on September 10, 2013. Ultimately, the Plaintiff could deliver the instant apartment to E, a new lessee, after repairing and cleaning the instant apartment. In this process, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1.2 million to the new lessee for the cost of storage of the said apartment. In addition, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and 3,000,000,000, won for the cost of repair for the bathing room, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the said sum. 2) On the Plaintiff’s argument, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement for the instant apartment between E and then paid the said KRW 2.6 million.