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

Furthermore, as the above premium contract was concluded by mistake or deception at the time of the conclusion of the above lease contract, it asserts that the contract should be cancelled and the premium should be refunded.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the premium contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is separate from the lease contract between the plaintiff and the store owner, and that the contract is not based on deception or mistake.

2. recognised facts;

A. At the time of April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D as to the first floor store of the Sungsung-si, the Defendant was operating as a restaurant.

The contents are as follows: 10 million won out of 40 million won of the security deposit shall be paid on the date of the contract, and 1.5 million won of the monthly rent shall be paid on the date of the contract, respectively, for five years.

(2) The Plaintiff paid 10 million won the remainder between April 15, 2014 and April 30, and received the delivery of this case’s store under the above contract.

B. Meanwhile, at the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the premium of the instant store as KRW 25 million, and among which five million is given and received on the day of the contract, exchanged on April 30, 2014 with the remainder of KRW 20 million.

(hereinafter “The instant premium contract”). After that, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant from April 14, 2014 to the 30th of that month.

C. The Plaintiff and D agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement on April 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

3. Determination

A. First, this lease contract and this premium contract are indivisible.