1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Based on the facts, on December 23, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract with the Defendant with the content that on December 23, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded the lease deposit amount of KRW 70,490 square meters for B factory site in Kimhae-si (the land before division C, D, December 5, 2011; the same shall apply hereinafter), the general steel-frame non-fluorging 900 square meters for a single floor factory in a single floor, and the 66 square meters for a single floor in a single floor in a light steel-framed fluorgel roof (hereinafter “instant building”), E-road 15 square meters for a single floor (the land before the division of F on September 7, 2012; the same shall apply hereinafter), lease deposit amount of KRW 70,000,000 for a rent, KRW 6,000,000 for a rent, from January 20 to 19, 2010.

On January 20, 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant concluded a lease contract with the condition that the lease deposit of KRW 100,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 7,000,000, and the lease term of January 20, 2012 from January 20, 2012 to January 19, 2014.

On January 20, 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that "if directors are to be incorporated into a factory in accordance with the plan on the outer road, they should be the defendant's demand."

On January 20, 2014, the original and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the effect that the lease deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000,000 per month of rent, KRW 8,000 per month of rent, and KRW 8,000 of value-added tax (excluding value-added tax of KRW 80,000), from January 20, 2014 to January 19, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff paid only KRW 70,000,000 out of KRW 100,000,000 as the lease deposit stipulated in the instant lease agreement to the Defendant.

At the expiration of the lease term of this case, G, the husband of this case, actually operated the place of business by occupying and using the land and buildings of this case.

On the ground of the instant land, there were several buildings and facilities other than the instant building, and some of them were used by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant respectively.

In this case.