1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 70,000,000.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 5, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, the owner of which, as well as Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, D, and 201 (hereinafter “instant housing”), with a deposit of KRW 70,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 50,000, and the period from August 14, 2013 to August 13, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid KRW 1,000,000, respectively, to C on August 5, 2013 and April 14, 2013.

B. On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained a fixed date from this court and completed the move-in report after receiving the instant house from the next day.

C. On December 27, 2013, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with C for the instant housing, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant housing on February 14, 2014.

On August 17, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail containing the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement, and the said mail was delivered to the Defendant on the following day.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 and 7 (including branch numbers for those with a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on November 18, 2015 after three months from the date when the Plaintiff’s intention to terminate the lease agreement reaches the Defendant pursuant to Article 6-2(1) and (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and thus, the Defendant, the transferee of the instant house, is obliged to pay KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff in accordance with Article 3(4) of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the instant lease agreement.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot accept the plaintiff's claim because the plaintiff received a loan from a new bank as security for the lease deposit stipulated in the lease contract of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30,000,00 from the new bank according to the statement No. 8 and the fact finding about the head of the new bank's branch.