1. The defendant's KRW 150,000,000 and about this, 5% per annum from June 1, 2020 to June 9, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the whole left-hand side of the first floor among the housing located in Seodaemun-gu, setting the lease term from May 13, 2016 to May 12, 2020, and the lease deposit amount as KRW 150 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and paid KRW 150 million, and resided in the said housing.

B. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the lease contract will not be renewed two months before the termination of the instant lease contract, and around May 31, 2020, delivered the instant leased object to the Defendant.

C. On April 25, 2020, the Defendant drafted to the Plaintiff a letter of intent to refund the lease deposit by May 12, 2020, but the Plaintiff did not receive the refund until now.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the lease deposit, the Defendant, on April 25, 2020, detained, threatened, and abused the Defendant on April 25, 2020, and the Plaintiff did not pay the cleaning costs, water supply, and electric utility fees, etc. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the amount to be refunded to the Plaintiff remains, if the Plaintiff deducted the aforementioned public charges and the attorney’s preemptive admission costs, diagnosis costs, drug value, and consolation money from the Plaintiff’s tort.

B. In light of each description of evidence Nos. 5 through 16, it is insufficient to find that the statement Nos. 1 through 4 alone was insufficient to acknowledge that there was a Plaintiff’s delinquency in payment of public charges and tort as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, and the Defendant’s above dispute is difficult to accept as it is.

C. Thus, as long as the Plaintiff returned the leased object upon the termination of the lease of this case, the Defendant, the lessor, and the Defendant, from June 1, 2020 to June 9, 2020, the delivery date of the complaint of this case, shall be 5% per annum, and the next day shall be repaid to the Plaintiff.