1. The Defendant’s KRW 90 million with respect to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 30, 2017 to May 17, 2017, and the following.

According to the purport of evidence No. 1 and the argument as a whole, the Plaintiff paid KRW 90 million to C until February 14, 2015, on the following grounds: (a) the lease deposit amount is KRW 90 million; and (b) the lease term is “from February 14, 2015 to February 13, 2017,” respectively; and (c) the lease deposit is fully paid to C until February 24, 2015; and (d) on February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the Defendant on July 13, 2016, and (e) the Plaintiff acquired the ownership transfer registration for each of the instant real estate from the Defendant on the ground that C was delegated with the right to manage the instant real estate as of July 13, 2016.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff acquired the opposing power of the instant lease around February 2015 pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the Defendant succeeded to the status of the lessor of the instant lease pursuant to Article 3(4) of the same Act, so long as the instant lease expires on February 14, 2017 due to the expiration of the lease term, the Defendant is, in principle, obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.

On September 5, 2016, the Defendant denied the obligation to return the lease deposit on the ground that the former owner C completed a provisional disposition on the instant real estate and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, and that the lawsuit is still in progress. However, the circumstances asserted by the Defendant cannot affect the said judgment by law.

Therefore, the Defendant’s claim on April 30, 2017, “The date following the date on which the Plaintiff returned the instant real estate,” as to the Plaintiff’s lease deposit amounting to KRW 90 million, as sought by the Plaintiff.”