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

A. The Defendant, including the current business status of the instant building, operated the restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “D” from around November 2005 to the owner of the building of Ulsan-gu C and the third floor, Ulsan-gu, and from November 2005 to the first and second floor (hereinafter “instant building”).

At the time of opening the business, the Defendant reported the restaurant business only with respect to the size of 122 square meters among the instant buildings. The second floor part of the instant building was operated with the alteration of its use into a single house. On February 22, 2016, the Defendant completed the procedures for the alteration of use under the Building Act to “the second class neighborhood living facilities,” which can be used as restaurant business from “the single house.”

However, the second floor of the instant building was included in the restaurant area, and the business report was not reported.

B. On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff, including the instant lease agreement, concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the instant building with a deposit of KRW 30 million, but to pay KRW 50 million for the premium and take over the instant restaurant business (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff reported the restaurant business of this case to the North Korean head of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City, and started the business in the same trade name as the instant building.

By May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 80,000,000,000 for lease deposit and premium.

C. On August 29, 2016, the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City North Korea’s Northern District Office notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the contract, and notified the Plaintiff of the corrective order disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff used the second floor of the instant building without filing a modified report without permission.

On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement by content-certified mail.

The defendant received the above content-certified mail on September 2, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 9 evidence, Eul 12 evidence, pleading.