2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On May 12, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants for the lease of approximately 34.91 units of the first floor, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 stores in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The details of the rent and the lease period among the lease agreements made at the time are as follows.

Article 2 (Rents) The Plaintiff shall rent the previous steering shop in a deposit of KRW 295 million (interest without interest) and monthly rent of KRW 10 million, and the monthly rent shall be paid to the Defendants by the end of each month.

Provided, That value-added tax on rental deposits and rents shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Article 3 (Lease Period) The lease period for this store shall be 36 months from May 12, 2009 to May 11, 2012.

Around that time, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 500 million to the Defendants, and has been transferred the instant real estate and operated a warning point at a place.

B. The above lease agreement continued to be renewed, and around October 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement.

On October 12, 2016, the Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate to the Defendants. On the same day, the Defendants remitted KRW 295 million to the Plaintiff.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As to the claim for the return of deposit, the Plaintiff asserted that the above KRW 500 million originally paid to the Defendants constituted the lease deposit. The Defendants, a joint lessor, jointly and severally, are liable to pay the Plaintiff the deposit amount of KRW 250 million (=500 million - KRW 295 million) and the damages for delay.

As to this, the defendants are merely KRW 295 million among the above KRW 500 million, and the remaining KRW 250 million claimed by the plaintiff is a premium, so the defendants are more entitled to deposit for lease.