1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

On November 2, 2016, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with C to lease D Apartment E (hereinafter “instant real estate”) a deposit of KRW 70 million (hereinafter “instant deposit”) and monthly rent of KRW 3240,000,000 (hereinafter “existing lease agreement”), and paid the said deposit to the Defendant.

On June 22, 2017, the Busan District Court issued a collection preservation order (No. 2017 early 1451) with respect to the claim for the claim for the refund of the deposit of this case to C (hereinafter “instant collection preservation order”) (hereinafter “instant collection preservation order”), and the above collection preservation order was served on the Defendant.

On July 14, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to succeed to the status of a lessee under an existing lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff had to maintain the contents of the existing lease agreement without receiving money.

Around July 10, 2018, the Defendant expressed to the Plaintiff the intent to refuse to renew the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant around September 1, 2018.

[Grounds for recognition] According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including the provisional number), and the facts of the above recognition that the obligation to return the lease deposit for determination of the purport of the whole pleadings has occurred, the defendant is obligated to refund the deposit money of this case to the plaintiff as the lessee and the delay damages, unless there are special circumstances.

The defendant's assertion is asserted that the plaintiff agreed to refund the lease deposit when the collection preservation order was cancelled between the plaintiff and the plaintiff. Therefore, considering the whole purport of pleading in the statement of No. 2, the plaintiff will return the lease deposit to the defendant when the collection preservation order was cancelled on September 1, 2018.