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

A. On October 2, 2012, the Plaintiff, C, and D entered into a partnership agreement with the effect that the Plaintiff, C, and D would operate the medical care center from the building located in Chuncheon City (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On October 2, 2012, C entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, the owner of the instant building, with respect to the instant building, which was KRW 100 million, KRW 4,500,00 per month, and the period from November 2, 2012 to November 24, 2017, and the lessee C (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, C paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant and received delivery of the instant building from the Defendant.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and D entered into an agreement with F to change the lessee of the instant lease to F on February 15, 2013.

The plaintiff from January 2013 to the same year

9. From March 2013 to March 30, 2013, “G” and “H”, which are long-term care institutions, are located in the instant building.

9. By 30.30, “I medical care center” was operated respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 11, 12, Eul evidence 2 (including relevant numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for refund of deposit for lease and the claim for necessary and beneficial expenses

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On February 15, 2013, a partnership agreement between the Plaintiff and D and C is terminated on February 15, 2013, and C is the right to lease the instant building (hereinafter “the instant right to lease”).

The right to lease of this case was transferred to both the plaintiff and D, and the defendant also accepted it verbally at the time. Since D waives all the rights related to the right to lease of this case, all rights related to the right to lease of this case are all the plaintiff. 2) However, the defendant entered into the instant lease contract even though there was an illegal building in the building of this case, and accordingly, the plaintiff could not properly use and benefit from the building of this case. The lease of this case was based on this.