1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 1, 2016 to April 25, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 1, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the six, nine, and ten floors in Gangnam-gu Seoul Building (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant, with the lease agreement between the Defendant and the lease agreement between KRW 300 million, and the lease agreement between September 1, 201 and August 31, 201, which was concluded between September 1, 201 and August 31, 201, but extended the lease agreement for one year on August 31, 2013.

On May 7, 2012, in order to conduct vocational training programs, the Plaintiff changed the use from the Defendant to the neighborhood living facilities (private teaching institutes) on May 10, 2012 on the condition that the business suspension or the return after the termination of lease is returned.

B. On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a new lease agreement with the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million with respect to the six and nine floors of the instant building, and the lease period of KRW 100 million with respect to the instant building from September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015, and the Plaintiff was returned from the Defendant on September 2, 2014, on the ground that the lease agreement was not concluded with respect to the ten floors of the instant building, and the Plaintiff was returned KRW 100 million with respect to the lease deposit for the ten floors of the instant building.

C. On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed not to enter into a contract any longer on the sixth and nine floors of the instant building, and on September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff only KRW 1.5 million out of the above lease deposit for the six and nine floors of the instant building on September 2, 2015, and KRW 30 million out of the remainder of KRW 50,000,000 to ensure the restoration of the sixth and nine floors to the original state, and to return it after the settlement of expenses at the time of restoration, and KRW 20,000,000 to guarantee the alteration of the use of the said ten floors to return it to business facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”).

However, on February 1, 2016, on the 6th floor of the instant building, CA Co., Ltd. and D Co., Ltd. on the 9th floor of the instant building concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant and acquired and used the interior language and facilities, which the Plaintiff had proposed, as they were, while entering into a new lease agreement with the Defendant, thereby making it unnecessary to restore the building to

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's 1, 2, 4 through 5.