The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff's assertion on July 1, 2001 entered into a lease agreement between the defendant's mother representing the defendant on July 1, 2001 with the terms that the plaintiff leases 6 of the 5,000,000,000, monthly rent of 200,000, and the lease term of 24 months from July 1, 2001 (hereinafter "the lease agreement in this case"), and the above commercial building was used as a storage for Taekwondo goods, etc. after paying the lease deposit in cash to the above C.

The Plaintiff asserted that the above second floor of the commercial building was also leased on July 1, 2001 while he leased and used the above second floor from the Defendant since 1983.

On the other hand, the defendant, while he was leasing the above 2th floor to the plaintiff with the lease deposit of KRW 15 million and monthly rent of KRW 350,000,000,000,000, the above 15th floor was requested from the plaintiff on April 1, 1999, and instead of the separate deposit for the 1st floor, the commercial building was leased with the deposit of KRW 15 million and monthly rent of KRW 700,000,000,000,000 as the previous 2nd floor deposit.

The Plaintiff agreed to raise the monthly rent of KRW 300,000 under the instant lease agreement with the Defendant around spring in 2012, and used it, and delivered the first floor commercial building, the object of the instant lease agreement, to the Defendant on April 15, 2016.

The Plaintiff did not refund the lease deposit from the Defendant, taking into account the circumstances of the Defendant who was economically difficult at the time, and delivered it to the Defendant. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000 upon the termination of the instant lease agreement and the delay damages therefor.

Judgment

The evidence No. 1 cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact of the instant lease agreement by the Plaintiff’s assertion on the sole basis of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3.