1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant and the Busan-gu Busan-gu c (hereinafter “instant cartel”) under which the Plaintiff agreed to lease the instant cartel (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) by setting the deposit amount of KRW 100 million, KRW 2200,000 per month, and the lease period of KRW 24 months.

B. On December 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order of KRW 535,000 for the cost of repairing signboards (Seoul District Court 2016 tea12608), but withdrawn the said application on February 8, 2017. On January 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for conciliation (Seoul District Court 2017M432) seeking a rent reduction, but withdrawn the said application on March 22, 2017.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement. On March 22, 2017, the Defendant concluded a contract with E and the instant cartels to lease by setting the deposit of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 220 million, and the rental period from March 27, 2017 to March 26, 2019.

F, who is the plaintiff's wife, paid 50,000 won in cash to the defendant.

On March 27, 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 99,80,000,000, which is the amount calculated by deducting KRW 100,000 from KRW 100,000,00 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 7-4, Eul evidence 2, 4, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the franchise of this case was difficult to conduct the business of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff offered a lease to the broker, and demanded the Defendant to return the deposit amount of KRW 100 million.

In urgent circumstances, the Defendant: “In the litigation case that the Plaintiff submitted two times to the Busan District Court against the Defendant, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with an attorney-at-law with an advance payment of KRW 3 million out of the advance payment. As such, the Plaintiff first paid the attorney-at-law with an advance payment of KRW 1 million out of the advance payment, which would be a deduction of KRW 1 million from the advance payment, and the Plaintiff could enter into a new lease contract with a third party.”