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

A. The Plaintiff is a merchant who operated the business by leasing sports shops in Jung-gu, Seoul. The Defendant is an incorporated foundation established with the aim of promoting the industry of Seoul Metropolitan Government and fostering small and medium enterprises comprehensively and systematically, thereby contributing to improving the management conditions and strengthening the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises, and the removal of D business C implemented by Seoul Metropolitan Government upon delegation by Seoul Metropolitan Government and the creation of a complex cultural space related to design was removed on December 19, 2007, and the building was opened on March 22, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant project”) was carried out.

B. When Seoul Special Metropolitan City decided the removal of C for the instant business, it agreed to move the shop occupants into a joint business establishment (hereinafter “E business establishment and FF business establishment”) such as “E Commercial Building” and “FFE Exhibition and Sales Place for Small and Medium Enterprises,” etc. located in C’s neighborhood, between the representative of a cooperative shop consisting of C’s shop occupants on February 13, 2008.

(hereinafter “this case’s transfer agreement”. The main contents of the agreement were to sublet the above transfer site to the shop occupants by the Defendant, an affiliated organization of Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The merchants shall pay 10% of the lease deposit actually, the remainder 90% of the lease deposit shall be paid by the Defendant, and the interest on the deposit to be borne by the Defendant shall be borne by the merchants, and the above lease period shall be set at five years and shall be extended only once (five years) if the merchants want to do so, and the Defendant subsidized promotion expenses within the limit of one billion won per year.

C. Most merchants, who had occupied C according to the transfer agreement of this case, concluded a sub-lease contract with the Defendant, and moved into a collaboration workplace around December 2008.

However, the Plaintiff and H, who operated a sports shop in the Plaintiff and C, continues to conclude a sub-lease contract and to extend the period of the tenant's occupation in relation to the E-workplace shop occupants.