1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On March 29, 2006, the Plaintiff leased the part of the 1st floor of Suwon-si C Commercial Building (D) from the Defendant as the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million and the lease term of KRW 24 months from April 11, 2006.

The plaintiff for the same year

4. By October, 400, the full amount of the lease deposit was paid.

② Around March 2008, the lease contract was terminated as it was sold to a third party at an auction procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Unless there are special circumstances to determine the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff KRW 50 million and delay damages.

The defendant's defense asserts that the plaintiff's claim to return the lease deposit has expired due to the completion of commercial extinctive prescription.

Claims arising from not only a claim arising from an act that has been engaged in a commercial activity but also a claim arising from an act that constitutes a commercial activity only for one of the parties shall also be subject to the extinctive prescription period of five years under Article 64 of the Commercial Act.

Commercial activities include not only the basic commercial activities falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act but also ancillary commercial activities performed by merchants for business purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1381, Apr. 27, 2006). As the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to operate the said store, the lease agreement constitutes an ancillary commercial activity performed by the merchants for business purposes, and the right to claim the refund of the lease deposit applies by the period of five years with the claim arising from an ancillary commercial activity.

It is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed on February 12, 2016 after the lapse of five years from March 2008 due to the termination of the lease agreement. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit against the Defendant was extinguished by prescription prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

The defendant's defense is recognized.