1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The facts below the basic facts are either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7, which are the whole purport of the pleadings. A.

On September 10, 2013, the Defendant and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease a wedding hall located in 19,20 stories (hereinafter “instant wedding hall”) from September 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with the lease term of KRW 1,470,000,000 from September 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013. In the event one of the parties to the instant lease fails to notify the other party of his opposition to the extension of the lease term in writing, the term of lease shall be automatically extended by one year, and when the lease contract of this case is terminated, the period of lease shall be extended by one year at the request of the non-party company to remove and restore the additional facilities. However, the period of lease of this case may be extended by the non-party company to its original state at the request of the non-party company.

B. On July 8, 2014, Nonparty Company expressed its intent to pay KRW 380 million (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the Defendant, instead of performing the obligation to restore the instant wedding, because it is anticipated that the termination of the instant lease agreement would take about KRW 380 million with the cost of restoring the instant wedding to the Defendant on August 4, 2014. As such, Nonparty Company expressed its intention to pay the Defendant KRW 380 million with the cost of restoring the instant wedding to the original state (hereinafter “the instant money”). The Defendant, with its consent, deducted the instant money from the lease deposit.

C. Meanwhile, the lease deposit against the defendant of the non-party company.