1. The defendant shall pay 30,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 1, 1997, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on the condition that the Plaintiff leases an intermediate room of KRW 30 million for lease deposit, and for a period from July 1, 1997 to 24 months from July 1, 1997, among KRW 216.86 square meters for the first floor of the housing of the 1st floor of Changwon-si D-si, Changwon-si, the second floor of the 216.86 square meters of the housing of this case (hereinafter “instant housing”).

However, in fact, the instant house was originally acquired by the Defendant, and the lessor of the said lease was also the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant via C of the lease deposit under the above lease agreement.

C. After that, E, etc., a co-owner of the instant housing site, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, which is the land for the instant housing, filed a lawsuit seeking the removal of the instant housing and the transfer of the site against the Defendant at the Changwon District Court 2012Ga6165, which was rendered a favorable judgment on January 15, 2014. This was finalized around that time, and was also rendered a favorable judgment on July 15, 2016, by filing a lawsuit seeking the removal of the instant housing to the lessee of the instant housing, including the Plaintiff, and was finally determined on August 4, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition of judgment, the Defendant became unable to perform the obligation of the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the instant house, and the instant lease contract was terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention of rescission on the date of the first pleading of the instant case on the grounds of this, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to refund KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff also claimed damages for delay on the lease deposit of this case, but the duty to deliver the real estate, which is the object of the lease, and the duty to return the lease deposit, are concurrently performed. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff delivered the real estate of this case to the defendant.