1. The Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit to the Defendants and the damages for delay are KRW 500,000,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From March 2007, the Plaintiff opened and operated a “H hospital” in the Chang-si G Building in the Chang-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City from Chang-si.

B. On March 13, 2007, I entered into a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis with the Plaintiff as to the funeral hall of the first floor underground in G building (hereinafter “instant funeral hall”) with the term of 500,000,000 won, and from March 13, 2007 to March 13, 2010, and completed the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis with the instant funeral hall on April 4, 2007.

C. The Plaintiff is operating a H Hospital on November 21, 2008.

On November 21, 2008, the decision to commence rehabilitation procedures was made on November 21, 2008 and the decision to authorize rehabilitation plans was made on September 28, 2009.

Upon filing an application for rehabilitation, the Plaintiff entered I as a rehabilitation creditor.

B, around March 1, 2010, when the rehabilitation procedure against the Plaintiff was in progress, the right to operate the instant funeral hall was acquired by transfer from I, and on April 1, 2010, the Plaintiff and the instant funeral hall entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 500,000,000 and the lease period of KRW 3 years from April 1, 2010 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

On the other hand, B paid KRW 500,000,000 to the Plaintiff on March 31, 2010, the day before the instant lease contract was concluded.

E. On May 12, 2010, on April 1, 2013, the day following the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of debt repayment (Quasi-Loan for Consumption, No. 338, No. 2010, No. 338, No. 2010, No. 2010) to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 500,000 as the lease deposit on April 1,

F. On January 5, 2015, the Changwon District Court rendered a decision to discontinue rehabilitation procedures on the grounds that the Plaintiff would not be able to smoothly perform the rehabilitation plan by raising funds according to the rehabilitation plan within the future rehabilitation plan, and the said decision was finalized on the 20th of the same month.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is below the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.