1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff, as well as KRW 20% per annum from September 26, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to enter into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, instead of paying the purchase price of KRW 150 million with respect to the forest land C 992 square meters, which the Plaintiff had against the Defendant, to enter into a lease agreement with the same amount as a security deposit in lieu of paying the purchase price.

B. On October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the lease deposit amount of KRW 150 million with the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1 story D 592.72 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) from October 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The period agreed by the Defendant to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff under the instant lease agreement is October 30, 2014.

C. The instant building is a building leased by the Defendant from E, etc., and the lease contract concluded on June 26, 2014 between the Defendant and E was terminated due to an unforeseen cause thereafter, and the Defendant lost possession of the instant building on December 5, 2014 according to the India Execution Act (Seoul Eastern District Court 2014No3982).

On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that the instant lease agreement was revoked for reasons such as nonperformance of the duty to deliver the instant building, and that a refund of KRW 150,000,000,000 for lease deposit was requested. The content-certified mail reached the Defendant around that time.

E. The Plaintiff did not receive delivery from the Defendant of the instant building.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 through 6, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the instant lease agreement was lawfully rescinded by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention of cancellation as of May 11, 2015 due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation. Therefore, the Defendant sought the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 150 million and the Plaintiff’s claim against the said amount.