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

A. On June 13, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and Ansan-si, a member C building 402 (hereinafter “instant store”) with the content that the lease deposit is KRW 20 million (the lease agreement amounting to KRW 3 million shall be paid at the time of the contract, the remainder of KRW 17 million shall be paid on July 13, 2012), KRW 1650,000 monthly rent, and the term of the lease shall be determined and leased as of July 12, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On June 13, 2012, the Defendant paid a down payment of KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff in cash, and the Plaintiff issued a receipt that received the down payment of KRW 3 million to the Defendant on the same day.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D and the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) in which only the name of the lessee was converted from “Defendant” to “D” (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

On July 12, 2012, the Defendant remitted KRW 7 million to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff received 3 million won as down payment on June 13, 2012, and 7 million won as part payment on July 13, 2012.

“The” issued a receipt of each content.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant using the instant lease agreement.

The Plaintiff, a partner of the Defendant, only issued the instant lease contract and receipt under the name of D, and did not cancel the lease contract with the Defendant at the time. If the Plaintiff was to cancel the lease contract with the Defendant, the Plaintiff would tear the instant lease contract, refund the lease deposit to the Defendant, and receive a new lease deposit from D, but the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not follow such procedures.

Rather, the Defendant transferred the remainder of the lease deposit in its own name.

Therefore, the defendant is a lessee of the store of this case.