1. The Defendant’s KRW 49,470,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 9, 2016 to September 20, 2016, and the next day.

Basic Facts

The defendant is the owner of Ysan-si C 201 Dong 910 (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case").

On March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment from the Defendant at KRW 70,000,000.

The term of lease is stipulated in the above lease agreement from May 25, 2014 to 24 months, but the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to refund the deposit at any time when the plaintiff left a director in the apartment of this case.

The Plaintiff paid the full deposit to the Defendant.

On July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff was a director of the instant apartment, and the Defendant returned the lease deposit amount of KRW 18,000,000 to the Plaintiff on December 3, 2015, including KRW 5,000,000 and KRW 13,000,000 on December 21, 2015.

[Ground for recognition] In light of the above-mentioned facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and judgment as to the ground for claim of the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the remaining lease deposit amount of KRW 52,000,000 and damages for delay thereof, unless there are special circumstances.

The gist of the Defendant’s defense regarding the Defendant’s defense was as follows: (a) the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 250,000,00 buildings (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) 40,000,000 from the Defendant’s wife; (b) the amount of KRW 190,000,000 out of the purchase price was to substitute for the Plaintiff’s acceptance of the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on each real estate of this case; and (c) the remainder of KRW 60,00,000,000 was to offset the obligation to pay KRW 58,00,000 against the refund of KRW 58,00,000 of the lease deposit; and (d)

In addition, the Defendant paid KRW 2,530,00 to the Plaintiff on February 29, 2016 as the refund of deposit for lease, which should be excluded from the scope of the refund of deposit for lease.

In fact, the defendant's wife E owns each of the real estate of this case.