1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11, 24, and 28 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the claim for return of the lease deposit by the plaintiff, the plaintiff opened a lease deposit with the defendant for the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent 1,000,000, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 11, 24, and 28 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and all pleadings, and the whole pleadings, and the fact that the plaintiff delivered the above lease deposit to the defendant on October 6, 2015 after setting the lease deposit of KRW 30,00,000,000 to October 5, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "C"), and the above fact that the plaintiff paid the lease deposit to the defendant.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not deliver the warehouse of this case to the defendant, since the plaintiff left the warehouse of this case with locks and the defendant did not receive the keys.

However, according to the above macroscopic evidence, the Plaintiff sent a text message to the Defendant to request the transfer of the remaining deposits as a result of opening the door of the instant warehouse on March 12, 2017, and the Defendant visited and confirmed the instant warehouse, and immediately thereafter, the Defendant did not object to the Plaintiff at the time of confirmation that the instant warehouse was locked, but did not object to the delivery of the instant slaughter house (see paragraph (2) below). Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff removed the instant warehouse with the locking the locking of the instant warehouse cannot be accepted solely on the basis of the descriptions or images of the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5.

Therefore, it is true.