1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On March 5, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit of KRW 7,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 420,000, and the term of lease from the Defendant as of April 9, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the same year.

4. 10. Occupancy.

B. Meanwhile, on April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff reported to the police that the Defendant had access to the instant real estate without the Plaintiff’s consent on the ground of the construction of water leakage in the building. As a result, when the Defendant was submitted to a summary trial, the Plaintiff’s eviction needs during the process of protest

On the ground that the Plaintiff did not comply with the request, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant in response to the eviction.

C. On April 19, 2016, the Plaintiff removed from the instant real estate.

On July 7, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence on the grounds that “the Defendant entered the instant real estate without obtaining the consent of the Plaintiff on April 18, 2016 on the ground of the water leakage construction of the building on April 18, 2016.” On October 12, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 300,000 for a crime of non-compliance with the removal, which was issued by the Ulsan District Court, stating that “the Defendant stated that “the Defendant was the police who was the Plaintiff on April 18, 2016, and did not comply with the request of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s mother even if he was requested to leave from the Plaintiff’s mother,” and that “the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 100,000 for a fine for negligence.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 13 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate upon the Defendant’s request for termination of the instant lease agreement. Therefore, the instant lease agreement was terminated, and the Defendant, upon the termination of the instant lease agreement, requested the Plaintiff to cancel the instant lease agreement, KRW 7,000,000, and KRW 780,000 for the Plaintiff’s director due to the Defendant’s request for termination of the instant lease agreement.