1. On the arrival of May 17, 2020, the Defendant is simultaneously simultaneously with the delivery of building D from the Plaintiff of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 18, 2018, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate from the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 327,00,000,000, and the lease period of the instant real estate from May 18, 2018 to May 17, 2020.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The defendant is currently missing.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 2 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated due to the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to terminate the contract following the change of circumstances, following the Defendant’s rejection of real estate fraud by the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit KRW 327,00,000 and the delay damages calculated from the date of delivery of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

3. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 5, it is recognized that the plaintiff sent to the defendant any content-certified mail containing his/her intent to terminate the instant lease agreement due to changes in circumstances on July 1, 2019.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the relevant mail has reached the defendant, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that the instant lease contract was terminated by the Plaintiff’s expression of intent cannot be accepted.

Meanwhile, according to the above facts, the lease contract of this case is terminated on May 17, 2020, and the defendant is obligated to return 327,000,000 won of the lease deposit to the plaintiff at the same time upon the arrival of the above date as the transfer of the real estate of this case from the plaintiff, and since the defendant is in an unknown state, the plaintiff needs to request the payment of the above lease deposit in advance.

4. As such, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit, and the burden of litigation costs is subject to the proviso of Article 98 and Article 101 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.