A. On January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, under the name of his mother C, with the terms of “50,000,000 won for lease deposit,” and “2,00,000,000 won for the first floor among the four-story buildings on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) in the name of his mother, and paid the said lease deposit to the Defendant around that time.

B. After that, the Plaintiff completed the interior construction of the instant store, etc., and began to conduct the business of the carpet, which sells coffees and booms, etc. (hereinafter “the instant box”) with the trade name “E” from April 2016.

C. On August 2017, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with F on the second floor (hereinafter “instant second floor store”) of the instant building, and F began business from October 2017 to “G” in the instant second floor store.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Upon entering into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the Defendant would not additionally sell the same type of business, such as coffee stores and hybrids, in the instant building.

Nevertheless, around October 2017, the Defendant sold the same kind of business that sells coffee and brine, etc. to the 2nd floor store of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff had a sudden net profit so that it is difficult to operate the brine of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

B. As such, since the instant lease contract was terminated, the Defendant shall return to the Plaintiff the deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000.