1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 12, 2008, the Plaintiff leased the 2nd floor (hereinafter “instant office”) among the 5th floor buildings located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant as the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,300,000 (excluding value-added tax) and operated a service business with the trade name “D” at the said office.

On January 29, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to increase the deposit amount to KRW 40,000,000. On January 16, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to re-increased the deposit amount as follows.

(hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The deposit for the lease under Article 1 shall be KRW 120,00,000, and the down payment shall be KRW 50,000,000 at the time of the contract and the remainder KRW 70,00,000 shall be paid on January 31, 2012.

The rent of KRW 3,000,000 per month shall be paid on the last day of each month.

Article 2 The lessor shall deliver to the lessee a condition that he/she can use for the purpose of the lease by January 31, 2012, and the lease period shall be from the date of delivery to January 31, 2014 (24 months).

Special Agreement - Value-added tax and public charges other than rents are separate (electric, gas) - Upon termination of the lease, the lessee does not claim the facility expenses and premiums to the lessor and shall restore them to the original state to the office and order them to be restored to the original state.

- It appears that environmental improvement charges and traffic inducement charges based on Article 36 of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act are referred to;

The fees for septic tanks shall be separately collected.

On September 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to reduce the rent from KRW 3,000,000 per month (excluding value-added tax) to KRW 2,90,000 per month (excluding value-added tax).

C. From July 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to terminate the contract at the instant office before the expiration of the term of the lease contract of this case, but the Defendant could not terminate the contract until the said term of the contract expires.

The plaintiff.