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

A. On November 25, 2010, the Plaintiff, on November 24, 201, leased a lease deposit of KRW 10 million, KRW 2 million per month of rent, KRW 2 million per month (excluding value-added tax), and KRW 364.99 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Defendant to a site on November 24, 201, Bupyeong-gu Incheon Special Metropolitan City Factory Site for Factory owned by the Defendant, with a view to returning the leased object to its original state at the time of termination of the contract, and not claiming the Defendant for all expenses, such as beneficial expenses and premium (agreement prior to the lawsuit).

B. The previous building was built on the instant land, which was owned by the Defendant, but the Plaintiff: (a) extended the said building with the Defendant’s consent to operate the restaurant; (b) changed the use of the said building to Class II neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants) around April 201; and (c) commenced restaurant business in the name of “D” around April 6, 201.

C. On May 24, 2015, the above lease agreement was renewed and continued even after the expiration of the lease term. Around May 24, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the terms of the lease deposit to KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million, and the period from May 24, 2015 to May 24, 2017, and entered into a special agreement to implement the previous contract and the protocol of settlement before filing a lawsuit.

On January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff recognized the Defendant the arrears of rent for about five months up to that time, and prepared and delivered a letter of commitment to deliver the leased object after restoration until January 31, 2017.

E. On May 26, 2017, the Defendant was handed over the instant land possessed by the Plaintiff by using the instant protocol of compromise prior to the filing of the lawsuit as the executive title.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the written evidence Nos. 13-1, 2, and 14-17 of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff extended the above building and changed its use.