1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Presumed factual basis

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s lease 1) on December 15, 1995 the real estate indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant store”) to the Defendant on December 15, 1995.

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease contract again on March 12, 2015, with a deposit of KRW 35,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and the period from December 29, 1995. Since then, upon termination of the lease, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease contract again by setting the deposit and the rent. (2) When concluding a lease contract again on March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the deposit of KRW 35,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,250,000, and the period from March 29, 2015 to March 28, 2018.

The Defendant agreed to restore the instant store to its original state upon the termination of the lease and return it to the Plaintiff.

B. On January 30, 2001, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis with respect to the instant store. The Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis with the period of January 30, 200 and the duration of the right to lease on a deposit basis, as stated in the purport of the claim.

C. On July 26, 2018, the Defendant retired from the instant store.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant requested the cancellation of the registration of chonsegwon (right to lease on a deposit basis) was removed when leaving the store of this case, and damaged the interior walls of the building, and the lighting was removed, but did not re- install the shapes, etc. installed before the Defendant’s lease.

Accordingly, the defendant, while leaving the store of this case, did not restore it to its original state.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff returned 30,125,000 won to the Defendant, which remains after deducting 3,000,000 won from the cost of restitution.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of chonsegwon established as stated in the purport of the claim against the plaintiff as to the store of this case.

B. The Plaintiff, after leaving the Defendant for damages due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of duty to restore, has become the Plaintiff.