The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 21,700,000 as well as to the plaintiff on March 25, 2018.

A. On January 9, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with a deposit of 25,000,000 won, monthly rent of 1,100,000 won, and the lease term of 36 months from January 30, 2008 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with respect to a singing practice room for the first-class D underground floor (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) and operated a singing practice room in the above commercial building.

The above lease agreement is stipulated as a special agreement, which states that “the premium shall be limited to machine air conditioners.”

B. In the general building register of the instant shopping mall, the said register states “198.56 square meters in the neighborhood of 198.56 square meters on July 10, 2003” as “the change of use to the 2-type neighborhood (sing practice room) and 75.44 square meters in a warehouse.”

C. On September 25, 2015, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant commercial building, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant succeeded to the existing lease agreement by re-Drafting the “Monthly Loan Agreement” on October 18, 2015.

In the above "Commercial Monthly Contract", "2. Premiums are limited to machinery and air conditioners."

/Sgd./

3. The phrase “a contract for succession due to sale and purchase,” and the deposit and rent are the same as the previous one. D. The Plaintiff sent to the Defendant two times on January 2018, and subsequently closed the singing practice room operated in the instant commercial building on March 5, 2018. E. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant that no business cannot be run at the end of January 1, 2018, and that the Plaintiff requested the return of the deposit by the end of February, 10, but the Plaintiff did not answer, and then liner the content of the contract.

The repayment of deposit shall be made by the end of March.

The certificate of content described as " was sent."

After receipt of the above content certification, the defendant presented to the plaintiff on March 12, 2018 that the return of the deposit would not be possible before removing and restoring the facilities used at the place of business.

The removal of facilities and restoration to the original state shall be unilaterally done.