A. The Defendant is a person operating Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C D (hereinafter “instant bath”), and the Plaintiff is a person who entered into a contract with the Defendant for the detailed bath service within the above bath.

B. On September 6, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amounting to KRW 60,000,000 and the term of the contract from September 20, 2012 to September 20, 2014 with respect to the duties in the sugar during the instant bath. The Plaintiff paid KRW 60,000,000 to the Defendant around that time.

(hereinafter “the lease of this case”). C.

On the other hand, on April 10, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the suspension of the operation of the instant bath on the ground of the interior works, and during which process, the Defendant’s spouse E transferred F the instant right to operate the bath around April 2014 to F.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the defendant discontinued the operation of the bath of this case on or around April 10, 2014, and thus the plaintiff could not use and benefit from the leased object of this case. Since the lease of this case expired after September 20, 2014, the lease of this case expired after the expiration of the lease period, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 60 million won of the lease deposit of this case and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from September 21, 2014 until February 29, 2016, the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, until February 29, 2016, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and the next day until the full payment date.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The Defendant asserts that, since the Defendant’s spouse E, who operates the instant bath, has transferred its business rights to F after the conclusion of the instant lease contract, F, was exempted from the obligation to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant asserts that F, in turn, took over the obligation to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.