1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, as the owner of “D” No. 103 Dong 801 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Jeju City, was residing in the instant apartment. As to the instant apartment, there was a right to collateral security of KRW 234,360,000 in a new bank (the New Bank) with respect to the instant apartment.

B. On June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was residing in Seoul, leased the instant apartment from the Defendant to KRW 310,000,000 from the lease deposit. The contents of the lease agreement are as follows.

1) KRW 31,00,000 on the date of the contract, the remainder 279,000,000 on the date of the contract, and KRW 279,00,000,00 shall be paid from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017) the lease term 3) from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016, the lessee pays the remainder (if there is no advance payment, the remainder) to the lessor before the lessee pays the intermediate payment (in the absence of advance payment), the lessor shall reimburse the amount of the down payment, and the lessee may waive this contract with the waiver of the down payment.

C. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 31,00,000.

On June 29, 2015, which was around the payment date of the remainder, the Plaintiff had become difficult to move to Jeju-do due to the circumstance, and thus, the contract was cancelled and the contract was partially returned. However, the Defendant refused this and urged the performance of the contract.

E. The Defendant received the remainder of KRW 279,00,000 from the Plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time cancelled the right to collateral security and prepared to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff, and decided on July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff was at the Jeju Bank New Jeju Branch. However, the Plaintiff did not appear at the above location, and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to partially refund the termination of the contract and the down payment on the ground that the relocation of Jeju-do was difficult at the remaining payment date. However, the Defendant refused to confiscate the full down payment on the ground that the down payment should be confiscated.

(f).