1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from April 18, 2018 to December 11, 2018; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. The facts of recognition - The defendant is the owner of the vehicle maintenance factory and vehicle inspection station (hereinafter “instant maintenance factory” and “instant inspection station”) newly constructed on the ground C of racing.

- Around January 2018, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to enter into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease”) in order to engage in vehicle maintenance business by leasing the above maintenance plant and inspection station from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff initially agreed to deposit KRW 50 million in terms of the lease agreement and KRW 5 million in monthly rent, among the terms and conditions of the lease agreement.

(At the second date for pleading, the two parties stated each other as a party to a contract. - The plaintiff made a statement to the defendant on January 23, 2018 as a security deposit.

2.12. Each remittance was made with a total of KRW 10 million 5 million.

- The Plaintiff and the Defendant continued consultation to prepare the lease agreement of this case, but failed to prepare the contract due to differences in the scope of the leased object, the amount of deposit and monthly rent, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport before oral argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) concluded the instant lease contract with the Plaintiff to have the lease of the instant maintenance plant and inspection plant of this case leased between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 5 million, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million out of the deposit to the Defendant.

(2) However, while the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to prepare a lease contract, there was a dispute that the instant inspector’s office was excluded from the leased object, and the Defendant did not prepare the contract by expressing his intention to increase the deposit and monthly rent. Since the termination of the lease contract of this case is based on the Defendant’s responsibility, the Defendant returned the deposit amount of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, and is within the maintenance factory of this case, as the damages suffered by the Plaintiff.