1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant from May 7, 2016 to 60,000 won from the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 22, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the first floor area of 56 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) out of the buildings indicated in the attached list to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.2 million, and the lease period from April 7, 2011 to April 6, 2013. The Defendant around that time paid the Plaintiff deposit amounting to KRW 50 million, and began to operate the main store in the instant store.

B. On April 7, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement again on the instant store by setting the lease deposit of KRW 60 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.9 million (excluding value-added tax), the lease period from April 7, 2013 to April 6, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

On the other hand, the plaintiff and the defendant prepared a separate lease contract on April 7, 2014 when the lease contract of this case was in force.

(Deposit, Rent, and Special Agreement are the same as the instant lease agreement; Provided, That the date of preparation and the date of delivery is April 7, 2014 and the term of lease is 12 months from the date of delivery; hereinafter “instant 2014 contract”). D.

The Defendant, while running a business at the instant store, removed on April 6, 2016, but asserted that the lease relationship for the instant store is maintained, and continued to occupy the instant store after which he/she continued to occupy the instant store.

(As of April 7, 2016, it is a factory laboratory). E.

On May 24, 2016, the Defendant deposited KRW 8,580,00 (including value-added tax) with the Seoul Central District Court No. 11257, May 24, 2016, as the payment of rent from March 7, 2016 to May 6, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 3, Eul's 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s 2014 contract is merely a written contract prepared for the purpose of filing a tax return at the Defendant’s request.

Inasmuch as the instant lease agreement was terminated on April 6, 2015, the Defendant is deemed to have expired.