1. The defendant points out of the first floor of the building listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff each point of indication 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 20, 2016, the Plaintiff leased, in sequence, from the Defendant, the part (a) size of 29.210 square meters in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant store”) connected each point of the 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the 1st floor of the building (the entire building is used as a convalescent hospital in the name of “C convalescent hospital”) indicated in the attached Table from the Defendant as of August 20, 2016, by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 500,00 won, monthly rent of KRW 50,000 (the 25th day of payment on August 20, 2016), from August 20, 2016 to July 20, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, and received delivery of the instant store from the Defendant and operated it as a convenience store.

C. Since the delivery of the instant store, the Plaintiff did not fully pay the agreed rent to the Defendant. On March 26, 2017, the Plaintiff suspended the business of convenience stores and set up the instant store.

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff with Busan District Court Western Branch No. 2017Kadan1637, which sought the order of the instant store. At least three times the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease contract on the grounds of overdue payment, the duplicate of the complaint in the instant case was served on the Plaintiff on April 24, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 5 in the evidence, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

가. 원고 주장 이 사건 임대차계약은, 원고가 영업이 잘 될 것이라는 피고의 꾐에 빠져서 체결한 것인데, 그 후 피고에게 속은 것을 안 원고가 2017. 3. 31. 계약해지통지를 보냄으로써 해지되었으므로, 피고는 원고에게 임대보증금 500만 원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant had concluded the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff’s business outlook is not true, and rather, the Plaintiff paid monthly rent at all.