1. The Defendant (Appointed Party) jointly and severally with the designated parties and jointly with the Plaintiff from January 5, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement between the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter, the same shall apply) and the designated parties, and the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Building C building 202 (hereinafter, the instant real estate) owned by the Plaintiff, until November 1, 2014, with respect to the lease deposit amounting to KRW 70,000,000 and the lease period.

B. The Plaintiff paid a lease deposit, and notified the Defendant that he/she did not wish to renew the lease contract more than six months prior to the expiration of the lease term.

C. On January 4, 2015, the Plaintiff handed over the instant real estate to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period, the Defendant and the designated parties, a joint lessor, jointly and severally, are liable to pay to the Plaintiff the lease deposit of KRW 70,000,000, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from January 5, 2015 to May 16, 2015, which is the date following the delivery of the real estate of this case, and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to

B. On July 10, 2015, the defendant's defenses on the defendant's deposit for repayment are defenses that the defendant deposited the plaintiff's deposit for payment in full.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, although the defendant deposited 70,000,00 won for repayment, it is recognized that the defendant deposited 70,000 won, but if the deposit for repayment is valid, it is required that the provision of the full repayment of the obligation and the deposit of the full amount of the obligation is made, and the deposit of part which is not the full amount of the obligation does not take effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da51359, Oct. 29, 2009). It is obvious that the defendant deposited 70,000,000 won as the principal is deposited only, and it does not reach the amount indicated in the text,