1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding the following part ordering payment.

Basic Facts

On February 22, 2010, the Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant with respect to D apartment 702, 1301, 175,000, and 1700,000, and the term of lease from April 6, 2010 to April 5, 2012. At that time, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 175,00,000 to the Defendant the said deposit.

On April 2, 2012, the Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to increase the deposit to KRW 45,00,000 and to KRW 220,00,000, with the lease deposit to KRW 45,000, and concluded a lease agreement to grant the lease term from April 6, 2012 to April 6, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid the Defendant the increased deposit to the Defendant around that time.

On February 22, 2013, before the expiration of the lease term of this case, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant that they will terminate the lease relationship upon the expiration of the lease term from February 22, 2013, and received a written confirmation from the Defendant to confirm the date of directors on April 5, 2013 (Evidence A) and demanded the return of the lease deposit by giving notice that there is no intention of re-contract by sending the content-certified mail and text message from March 2013.

On April 15, 2013, the Plaintiffs, who were not the Defendant’s answer, completed the lease registration on May 27, 2013 upon receipt of the order of lease registration by Suwon District Court Decision 2013Kaman768, which was issued on May 27, 2013. On June 3, 2013, the Plaintiffs left the instant apartment from the E-real estate office that arranged the lease agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and left the key of the instant apartment.

In addition, around that time, the plaintiffs sent to the defendant a mail stating that the director of the apartment of this case and the key of the apartment entrance was assigned to E-real estate (Evidence A No. 8), and text messages were sent separately.

【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, and the entries of Gap 1 through 17, 22, and 25 [the defendant] are written at his own discretion in the confirmation document submitted by the plaintiffs (the evidence No. 3 was written at his own discretion in the original confirmation document).