1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 24, 2013, the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant a rental term of KRW 2 years, a rental deposit of KRW 10 million, and a rental fee of KRW 700,000,000 to the Defendant on the ground C (hereinafter “instant warehouse”). On August 24, 2013, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 5,30,000,000, which is a part of

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On November 24, 2013, the Defendant removed from the warehouse of this case.

C. The rent that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 2.1 million, and the period imposed by the Defendant in possession of the warehouse of this case is KRW 200,230.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged rent that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 2.1 million. The electricity fee imposed by the Defendant during the period in which the Defendant used the instant warehouse is KRW 200,230, and the repair cost necessary for the Defendant’s use of the instant warehouse is KRW 9,612,730, which is KRW 9,612,730.

Therefore, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 6,612,730,00, which is part of the security deposit to be returned to the Defendant, by deducting the above KRW 5.3 million from the above KRW 9,612,730 (=the above KRW 2,100,00,00 KRW 2,000,00 KRW 9,612,730 - the above KRW 5.3 million) and damages for delay.

B. (1) According to the fact that the above part of the rent and the electricity fee is recognized, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the above fee of KRW 2.1 million and the above electricity fee of KRW 200,230,230 and the damages for delay.

(2) We examine the cost of reinstatement, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above recognition: ① the period for the Defendant to possess the warehouse of this case, namely, the whole cost of restoring to the warehouse of this case claimed by the Plaintiff for a short time, is very difficult to view that the Defendant was incurred while the warehouse of this case was occupied by the Defendant; ② the warehouse of this case is actually established until the date of closing argument in the trial of this case.