1. As to KRW 300,427,160 among them and KRW 300,00,000 among them, the Defendant shall start from May 3, 2019 to September 7, 2019.

Facts of recognition

On October 14, 2015, the Plaintiff leased D Apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with a deposit of KRW 300,000,000, and the period from November 11, 2015 to November 10, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant lease”). The Plaintiff resided in the instant apartment after completing the move-in report.

On August 23, 2018, the Defendant purchased the instant apartment with C on August 23, 2018, succeeded to the status of the lessor of the instant lease contract at that time. The instant lease contract was implicitly renewed and continued after the expiration of the original lease term.

The Plaintiff and the instant lease term were agreed to extend the lease term to February 28, 2019.

On November 6, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the scheduled delivery of the instant apartment on or around April 2019, but the Defendant responded to the purport that the Defendant would seek a new lessee on or around April 2019.

After that, the new tenant did not appear in the apartment of this case, and the defendant did not dispute over the issue of the refund of deposit, and March 8, 2019; and

3. 14. Two times notified the expiration and termination of the lease term of this case and demanded the return of the lease deposit.

On April 25, 2019, the Defendant did not comply with the Plaintiff’s above request. On May 2, 2019, the Plaintiff completed the registration pursuant to the order of lease registration on the instant apartment, and notified the Defendant of the method of returning the password, real auxiliary key, etc. using the Kakaox, while leaving the instant apartment on May 2, 2019.

Meanwhile, the long-term repair appropriations paid by the Plaintiff while residing in the apartment of this case is KRW 427,160.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including additional numbers), and according to the above-mentioned facts of determination of the purport of the whole pleadings, the lease contract of this case was terminated or terminated at the latest on April 2019, and thus, the defendant shall pay 300,427,162 = 162.