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 November 29, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, the land owner, who was engaged in the automobile maintenance business, providing that “The lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million (5 million out of the remainder of KRW 25 million when entering into a contract and the remainder of KRW 15 million shall be paid on December 28, 2018), monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, and the lease term of KRW 1.5 million from January 17, 2019 to January 16, 2024” (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. In addition, upon entering into the instant lease agreement on November 29, 2018, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 10 million by December 28, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”) in return for acquiring automobile maintenance facilities, including two lifts and wheelchairs equipment, used by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant facilities”), and agreed to receive the registration of the automobile management business entity from the Defendant.

C. Meanwhile, pursuant to the instant lease agreement and agreement, the Plaintiff brought an dispute with the Defendant as to the sublease of the instant maintenance facility around April 2019 while operating the automobile maintenance business in the instant maintenance facility from January 19, 2019 after paying each of the costs of the instant facilities and the instant facilities to the Defendant, respectively, pursuant to the lease agreement and agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for refund of deposit for lease

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not perform his duty to repair the water leakages occurred in the maintenance site of this case, and that the land surrounding the maintenance site of this case was not provided as a parking lot, or that the defendant's goods inside the maintenance site was not collected. Thus, the contract of this case is terminated on the ground that the defendant's above default is above. Thus, the defendant is the plaintiff.