1. The part of the lawsuit in this case concerning the removal of the temporary installation and installation and the claim for restitution shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall make the plaintiff 5.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant as the lease period from May 25, 2017 to May 25, 2019, KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,600,000.

B. In the instant building, the Defendant operated a restaurant business; from May 2018, the Plaintiff did not pay the tea to the Plaintiff; and the Defendant closed the restaurant on July 10, 2018.

around August 2018, the Defendant carried out the equipment located in the instant restaurant, and sought the return of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s request for replacement of the lessee or payment by the expiration date of the lease agreement.

C. The Defendant installed a water tank on the instant building for restaurant business during the lease term, and saved the entrance, gas pipes, etc., and installed and used the structures inside the first floor.

On May 25, 2019, the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract for the instant building on the ground of the rent delay, and sent a notice of termination seeking restitution and evacuation by mail proving the contents of the contract to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, on May 27, 2019, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written notification stating that “The Plaintiff shall restore the facility to its original state without the Defendant’s restoration to its original state, according to the written estimate for litigation and attachment, but if the Defendant prepares and forwards a written waiver of the facility to the effect that he/she would waive the collection and facility and consent to voluntary removal until May 31, 2019, the Plaintiff will not claim the cost of the surrender lawsuit, and the cost of restoration to its original state is KRW 8,90,000,000.”

On May 30, 2019, the Defendant: (a) removed all the facilities to the Plaintiff with the response to the above notification; and (b) if there remain remaining facilities, renounced; (c) however, (d) sent content-certified mail to the effect that there is a dispute over the claim for restitution.