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

A. From November 18, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) determined and leased the leased deposit of KRW 10,000,000,000 (excluding value-added tax), and 12 months (by November 30, 2018) from the Defendants, who are married couple, as the leased deposit of KRW 18.3 square meters in the part of the store indicated in the attached drawing (A).

B. On November 18, 2017, the date of the contract, the Plaintiff paid one million won the down payment to Defendant B.

C. Defendant B paid a double amount of down payment of the down payment and expressed his intent to terminate the lease three times from the conclusion of the contract to 4 p.m., but the Plaintiff agreed to pay the remainder nine million won until November 30, 2017, but the Plaintiff paid the remainder nine million won to the Defendants on the same day.

【Fact that does not have any dispute】

2. The key point of the parties’ assertion argues that the Plaintiff is legally constituted the instant lease contract, and the Defendants should deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants paid a double amount of the down payment and legitimately declared their intent of rescission of the lease contract, so the Plaintiff’s assertion is unjust.

3. In full view of the evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the Defendants’ intent to pay a double amount of the down payment to the Plaintiff after the conclusion of the instant lease contract, and expressed their intent to cancel the lease contract before the payment date of the remainder, but it is recognized that the Plaintiff rejected it.

Therefore, since the lease contract of this case was lawfully rescinded, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the delivery of the store of this case is not accepted under the premise that the contract of this case is valid, and it is dismissed.