1. In accordance with the expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial, paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the first instance is amended as follows.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2012, the Plaintiff leased, from the Defendant, the second and third floors of the building located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant, as KRW 130 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.5 million, and the contract term from October 22, 2012 to June 15, 2014, the Plaintiff determined as KRW 20 months.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”) B.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million out of the deposit to the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant on the day of the instant lease agreement, instead of returning the deposit of D, which is the former lessee, to the Defendant, and the remaining KRW 30 million was remitted to the Defendant and paid.

C. According to the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased a “Ecafeteria” building operated by the former lessee D; (b) operated it beyond the period stipulated in the said lease agreement; and (c) prepared a document stating the “certificate” (hereinafter “instant confirmation document”) around June 1, 2018; and (c) agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement by mutual revenue between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

I confirm that no later than July 31, 2018, the certificate itself shall be accompanied by both the 2 and 3th floor of C Building (Ecafeteria).

In addition, if the deposit is not returned by July 31, 2018, this letter shall be deemed null and void.

on June 1, 2018, the lessor A (Ur) B (Urin) of the E-cafeteria.

D. On July 27, 2018, the Plaintiff removed the instant real estate from the real estate and gave the Defendant the key.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The instant lease agreement was terminated upon the Plaintiff’s assertion in writing of the confirmation document of this case. The Plaintiff, according to the purport of the confirmation document of this case, did not know all the house units of the instant real estate and delivered them to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant paid a lease deposit of KRW 130 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.