1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 5% per annum from April 29, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 5, 2014, between C and C, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 60,00,000,00 for the first floor among the second floor detached houses of KRW 14737 of the manufacturing schedule 14737 in the Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant house”) and the term of lease from September 22, 2014 to September 21, 2016; and the occupant entered into a real estate lease agreement with the Plaintiff as the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On March 24, 2015, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with C for the instant housing, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 22, 2015.

C. Since November 2015, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, who is the occupant of the instant housing, had a dispute between the Defendant and the Defendant as a floodgate system from November 2015. Ultimately, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the instant lease on April 28, 2016, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor handed over the instant building to the Defendant on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the facts of the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was lawfully concluded. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the deposit deposit of KRW 60,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, as sought by the Plaintiff, from April 29, 2016 to the date of full payment, from April 29, 2016, the day following the day on which the instant house was delivered

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant could not accept the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving KRW 5,95,00,000 from the Plaintiff’s Intervenor who used the instant house and did not recover the instant house even though the Plaintiff’s Intervenor damaged the instant house by using the said house, such as making the hole in the windows, double windows, etc., the air conditioner connections, and paying the water purifier connections on the walls, etc., and thus did not restore the said house to its original state. Therefore, the Defendant cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving KRW 5,95,00,000 from the cost of restoration to its original state.