1. The defendant shall pay 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the leased deposit of KRW 35 million, and KRW 650,000,000,00,000,00 for the leased house located in the Defendant and macro-si D (hereinafter “instant house”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On November 17, 2014, around 2014, the lease deposit was changed to KRW 40 million, and around June 15, 2015, the lease deposit was changed to KRW 50 million and KRW 400,000,000.

The instant lease agreement was terminated on October 5, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, images of Gap evidence 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Since the instant lease contract was terminated, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff as the restitution following the termination of the lease contract, barring special circumstances.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the lease deposit received from the plaintiff is merely KRW 30 million.

However, in addition to the aforementioned evidence, Eul evidence No. 1, evidence No. 1, and witness E’s testimony, E concluded a lease agreement on the instant housing with a lessee as delegated by the Defendant, and KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the H’s account as designated by E, around September 15, 2014.

Around June 15, 2015, the Defendant remitted each of KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account, and ③ E recognizes the fact that the Defendant has not remitted the remainder after remitting only KRW 20 million out of the lease deposit received from the Plaintiff.

In full view of the above facts, E seems to have been delegated the right to enter into a lease agreement and the right to receive the lease deposit by the Defendant.

Since an agent's act within his authority takes effect on the principal (Article 114(1) of the Civil Act), E is from the Plaintiff.