1. The Defendant’s KRW 78,411,980 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from August 2, 2014 to June 26, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 7, 2010, the Defendant: (a) respectively determined on the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000; and (b) from June 3, 2010 to June 2, 2012, the lease deposit amount of KRW 563-1, 564-3, and 564-4, a building built of reinforced concrete on the land of Tae-dong, Tae-dong, Tae-dong, Tae-dong, Gwangju, and a building built of reinforced concrete on the land.

B. On June 18, 2010, the Plaintiff is against the Defendant.

From June 18, 2010 to June 2, 2012, land and buildings equivalent to 75% of each real estate stated in the paragraph (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) were each set of lease deposit amounting to KRW 80 million, monthly rent of KRW 13,880,00 (excluding value-added tax), and lease term of KRW 18,00 (excluding value-added tax).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant sublease contract”). C.

The instant sub-lease contract period was extended by June 2, 2014, and again was extended by August 1, 2014, and the Plaintiff paid the monthly rent until August 1, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact of finding the cause of the claim, the sub-lease contract of this case is terminated due to the expiration of the period of validity, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000 and the damages for delay.

3. The defendant's argument that the following amount should be deducted from the above lease deposit, but the defendant's argument that the deduction of KRW 1,588,020 is recognized for the following reasons, and the argument that the deduction exceeds the above shall not be accepted.

A. Although the lessee continued to possess the leased building part in order to refuse to return the object by exercising his/her right of defense of simultaneous performance even after the termination of the lease agreement on August 2014, 2014, the lessee did not obtain substantial benefits because he/she did not use or benefit from the leased building according to the original purpose of the lease agreement.