A. On April 15, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the instant store from D, and on April 20, 2017, leased the instant store to Defendant B with a deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly facility usage fee of KRW 6 million, monthly facility usage fee of KRW 6 million, and period of two years.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant sublease contract”). (b)

Defendant B paid KRW 50,500,000,000 to the Plaintiff, including the deposit amount of KRW 30,000 for the instant sublease contract.

C. Defendant B did not pay more than three years facility usage fees for the instant sublease contract, and the Plaintiff notified Defendant B that the instant sublease contract will be terminated on the ground of this.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence No. 11, Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. Upon the completion of the instant sub-lease contract, Defendant B asserted that, while entering into the instant sub-lease contract, the Plaintiff provided all the equipment located in the instant store, and the Plaintiff failed to perform the obligation under the instant sub-lease contract by collecting the equipment, the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal claim against Defendant B, which is premised on Defendant B’s breach of duty, is groundless.

(2) In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7, and 8-1, and 2 as a whole, Defendant B, upon entering into the instant sub-lease agreement, agreed to acquire the equipment within the instant store from the plaintiff for 7.7 million won, and the plaintiff and defendant B agreed to acquire the equipment, and accordingly, the collection of the equipment by the plaintiff cannot be deemed as a violation of the duty under the sub-lease agreement.

(3) Defendant B did not pay the facility user fee under the instant sub-lease contract for more than three years, and the instant sub-lease contract was terminated upon the Plaintiff’s notice of termination of the contract.

B. The plaintiff's main claim against the defendant B and the defendant B's counterclaim claim against the defendant B (1) with the restoration to the original state following the termination of the sub-lease contract of this case.