1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,068,435 as well as 5% per annum from May 31, 2014 to May 27, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. (i) On January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for the lease of seven stores (hereinafter “instant leased stores”) of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B, including KRW 336, B37, B38, B340, B343, B344, B348, and B348 (hereinafter “instant leased stores”) with the Defendant as of January 13, 2012, the lease agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the lease of KRW 30,000,000 for deposit money, KRW 1,40,000 for the following month (excluding value-added tax, and the last day of each month), and the period from January 13, 2012 to January 12, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). In consideration of the Defendant’s interior Corporation, the Defendant, who is the lessee, agreed to the management fee imposed for the instant leased stores, to be borne by the Defendant.

Meanwhile, Article 18(2) of the instant lease agreement provides that “where this contract is terminated due to a breach of duty, etc. of the Defendant, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent for three months based on the monthly rent as at the date of termination of the contract.”

She, however, on June 13, 2012, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of the content that “B340 and B348 were not capable of carrying out the interior works due to unauthorized occupation and facilities, and the remainder of the store, after directly organizing the interior works, the Defendant carried out the interior works without permission. However, it is unreasonable for the Defendant to carry out the projects as long as the project is more likely to carry out on a legal holiday and night, such as heavy expenses, and thus, it is unreasonable to demand the termination of the contract and the return of the deposit.”

On June 20, 2012, the plaintiff agreed to the defendant that the plaintiff would exercise his right as the tenant, and the lease contract was concluded with the defendant. The defendant entered into a contract with the owner of the mortgaged, even though he was already aware that he was the owner of the mortgaged, and the article is also handled by one person within one hour.