1. The part of the claim for confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation to return the lease deposit among the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff, Ga.

1. On August 8, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, setting a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 2200,000 ( August 8, 2015), and the term of lease from August 8, 2015 to August 24, 2015, with respect to the store located in Pyeongtaek-si D (hereinafter “instant store”).

However, between the plaintiff and the defendant B, ‘10 million won in security deposit, monthly tax of 1.1 million won in monthly income, and the lease period of 2015 in 2015.

8. Two parts of the same lease agreement were written from August to 24 months.

Defendant B was paid from August 2015 to May 2016: Provided, That the rent for the last five minutes on May 2016 was paid on June 9, 2016 at the latest for one month.

Around the 8th day of each month, 200,000 won was paid in advance before June 2016, and was in arrears since June 3, 2017, and the same year.

4.7. & 4.9

5. 10. Each 2.2 million won was paid under the name of rent.

Defendant C, along with Defendant B, operated a restaurant at the instant store until the date of closing argument, and occupied and used the instant store.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 7 through 9, Eul evidence 5 through 7 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts whether the lease contract of this case was terminated as to the plaintiff's assertion, that the lease contract of this case was terminated or terminated on the ground that the defendant B, first of all, failed to pay more than three times the rent under the lease contract of this case, on the ground that he subleted the contract to the defendant C without permission.

First of all, it is not sufficient to recognize that Defendant B subleted the instant store to Defendant C without permission on the sole basis of the Plaintiff’s primary cause of claim, and the entries or images of Party A’s Nos. 4 through 6 submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Next, we examine the plaintiff's conjunctive cause of claim.