1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant leased a pharmacy of the first floor, Daegu-gu C Commercial Building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”) at the same time for five years from March 16, 2016 to March 15, 2021, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 600 million, monthly rent of KRW 10 million (excluding value-added tax), and the lease period of KRW 10 million (excluding value-added tax), and the lease period of the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter) The lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is called the instant lease contract.

On March 16, 2016, the Plaintiff began to establish and operate a pharmacy under the trade name of “D pharmacy” from March 28, 2016, after being transferred the instant store.

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

2. On March 28, 2016, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion became difficult to operate a pharmacy with the winding of approximately one hundred and five days after the Plaintiff established a pharmacy.

Accordingly, on April 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to terminate the lease contract, and the Defendant consented to such demand and concluded the lease contract by seeking a new lessee.

On April 19, 2016, the Plaintiff closed a pharmacy and delivered the store to the Defendant. The Plaintiff received only KRW 420 million out of KRW 600 million from the Defendant’s side.

As such, the instant lease agreement was terminated, and the Plaintiff had already returned the instant store, which is the leased object, so the Defendant ought to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the lease deposit KRW 180 million.

3. The fact that the agreement on the termination of the instant lease agreement is recognized by the Defendant.

However, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments, on April 19, 2016, the plaintiff's side and the defendant's side confirmed that on April 19, 2016, the amount of KRW 420 million out of the lease deposit of the lease deposit of this case was returned to the plaintiff's side and the remaining KRW 180 million was returned to the plaintiff's side, and the defendant's side agreed to confiscate it with the cancellation amount. The statement No. 4 does not interfere with the above recognition.

The plaintiff set the amount of KRW 100 million as the cancellation fee.