A. On March 12, 2010, there is no dispute between the parties, or there is a provision that the value-added tax shall be separately imposed on the subject matter of the special agreement according to the statement in the evidence No. 1 (Lease Agreement) as to the store of this case owned by the Plaintiff between the Defendant B and the Plaintiff, according to the following facts: (a) there is no settlement between the parties; or (b) the Plaintiff is 2.5 million won per month, which is the amount stipulated in the lease agreement. However, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the actual rent is KRW 2.5 million per month, which is the amount stipulated in the lease agreement.

However, the defendants asserted on the premise that the value-added tax is 2.4 million won per month without any mentioning, but this seems to be a clerical error or error of 2.5 million won.

From March 19, 2010 to April 19, 2011, a lease agreement was concluded (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B) The Plaintiff received the lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million from Defendant B until March 19, 2010, and delivered the instant store to Defendant B on the same day. C) Defendant B continued to occupy the instant store with the Defendant C even after the period of contract agreed upon under the instant lease agreement, and continued to hold the restaurant business in the name of “F”. From December 2012, the Plaintiff participated in the restaurant business. From around that time, the Defendants jointly occupied the instant store and run the restaurant business under the trade name of “E” while occupying the instant store until that time, the Plaintiff expressed his intent not to renew the instant lease agreement with the Defendant B with the content certification. 2) The Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “The Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”).