A. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the rental purpose of the commercial building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) located in Gangnam-gu (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) from the French dominant point of view, the deposit for lease deposit of KRW 60 million (payment of KRW 6 million on the date of the contract, the balance of KRW 54 million on the date of the contract, the payment of KRW 54 million on the date of July 15, 2014), the monthly rent of KRW 2.9 million, the lease period of KRW 2.9 million on the monthly rent, and from August 1, 2014 to July 31, 2016.

The above contract includes the following:

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). It is a contract in the present facility condition.

The plaintiff shall restore the commercial building of this case to its original state at the time of the expiration of the contract and order it.

The removal of a building which is illegal on the back of the building shall be handled together at the time of the whole interior works, and the present lessee shall bear the cost of the removal only.

Expenses shall be paid when the balance is settled.

All facilities necessary for operation shall be decided by the plaintiff.

The administrative affairs necessary for business shall be the cooperation of the defendant.

B. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff paid each of the remainder of the lease deposit KRW 6 million to the Defendant and KRW 45 million on July 14, 2014.

C. The instant shopping mall was divided into three parts due to two inner walls, such as the annexed drawing, and the Plaintiff intended to remove two inner walls for the French store business.

However, the Defendant opposed this on the ground of building safety, the Plaintiff was not in preparation for the commencement of all businesses, including the interior construction of the instant commercial building, the removal of illegal buildings on the back of the commercial building, and the application for restaurant business license under the Plaintiff’s name.

On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to remove two walls in the instant commercial building and deliver a written consent, etc. to the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works, and notified the Plaintiff that the instant lease contract was revoked if it did not deliver a written consent within five days.

Accordingly, the defendant.