2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

On December 4, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million, the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, the lease deposit amount of KRW 1050,000,000, and the lease deposit was paid to the Defendant around that time.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant, until December 19, 2014, changed the term of lease on November 3, 2012 to KRW 1.180,000 per month, and agreed to increase the rent to KRW 1.230,00 per month as of November 2014, but to reduce the rent to KRW 90,000 per month on December 2018.

[Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff asserts that the lease agreement was terminated by January 2019 between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, which was written in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the ground for claim as a whole.

According to Gap evidence No. 8, the plaintiff's agent, around January 29, 2019, Eul answer to the purport that "I would like to close the child-care center in operation of the building of this case, I would not know that I would not know that I would like to promptly call, and that I would like to promptly call." The plaintiff's agent, "I would like to know," and the fact that C requested the return of the lease deposit to the real estate intermediary is not a dispute between the parties.

However, the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence No. 6 and No. 2 comprehensively based on the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the Defendant is trying to return the lease deposit in order to smoothly resolve the lease deposit without legally recognizing the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit in the content of the Plaintiff’s request for the payment of the lease deposit, and the Defendant responded to the purport that the rent and the management fee will continue to be paid. In full view of the above facts alone, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the lease contract.