1. At the same time, the Defendant’s delivery of real estate stated in attached Table 1 from the Plaintiff at KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff on August 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 10, 2010, the Defendant and C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. On November 5, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the instant store with a deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,650,000, and the period from November 6, 2013 to November 5, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and paid the deposit to the Defendant. At that time, the Plaintiff operated a singing room by delivery from the Defendant.

C. After that, around November 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant extended the instant lease agreement by November 5, 2015, and extended again on November 6, 2015 by November 5, 2016.

On the other hand, around March 2014, the Plaintiff transferred to D the right to refund the lease deposit to D.

D Around December 2017, the Plaintiff transferred the right to refund the lease deposit again to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant on December 4, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 14 evidence, Eul evidence 4 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the above recognition of the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on November 5, 2016, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to refund KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. (2) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay for the beneficial cost of KRW 2,612,50,000, totaling KRW 3,612,500,000, totaling the electrical construction cost and the fire-fighting design cost of KRW 1,612,50,00,00, in order to operate singing at the instant store.

However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 4, if the plaintiff concludes the instant lease contract and terminates the lease contract again, it can be recognized that the plaintiff agreed not to claim the right to the facilities to restore the store to its original state and return it to the defendant when the lease contract is renewed.