1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is against the plaintiff Jeon Jin-gu Seoul Metropolitan City C205.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 14, 2011, the Plaintiff leased, respectively, the term of the contract, from June 14, 2011 to June 14, 2013, the lease deposit amount of KRW 21 million, and the management expenses incurred by the Defendant, respectively.

(hereinafter, the lease contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant is "the lease contract of this case"). B.

The management fee of the room room of this case under the instant lease agreement is KRW 30,000 per month.

C. The Plaintiff, around January 2013, went to the studio of this case. However, the studio of this case remains in part, such as the Plaintiff’s studio.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the plaintiff's cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 21 million to the plaintiff at the same time as the plaintiff receives the room of this case due to the termination upon the expiration of the term of validity of the lease contract of this case, except in extenuating circumstances.

On January 2013, the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff delivered the studio of this case to the Defendant, because the Plaintiff’s studio was delivered to the Defendant by verbal termination of the instant lease agreement and the Plaintiff’s her body while going to a director. However, as seen earlier, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion, and as long as part of the Plaintiff’s studio remains in the studio of this case, the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the studio of this case to the Defendant.

B. The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant did not receive management expenses from the Plaintiff even though the room management expenses of this case were 30,000 won, and that the Plaintiff could not repair the water leakage generated from the laundry machine installed in the room of this case by locking the room of this case with the key.