2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The plaintiff has operated laundry at the above store since December 2005 after leasing the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Prize No. E to C.

B. On February 7, 2018, the Defendant leased D, H, and I (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to F for the purpose of the real estate brokerage office.

C. Following C’s refusal to renew, the lease under E terminated on November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff concluded a premium agreement with the Defendant on April 20, 2018 with respect to the instant real estate (the “Lessee” refers to the Defendant, and the “new lessee” refers to the Plaintiff), and paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 25 million.

Premium: Where a lease contract is not concluded due to reasons not attributable to a lessee and a new lessee, such as a lessor's refusal to enter into a contract, unreasonable terms and conditions of lease, damage to an object, etc. (payment of KRW 25 million on December 31, 2018), the contract shall be null and void, and the lessee shall immediately return the down payment, etc. he/she has received to the new lessee.

(3) Article 2(2) of the Act provides that a lease contract with a lessor shall be concluded upon the notification of the date of the remainder of the lease contract with a lessor, and if a lease contract with a lessor is not concluded, this contract shall be null and void, and the lessee shall not be subject to penalty (Article 3(2) of the Act). Paragraph(2) of the Act provides that a lessee shall return the premium contract amount (25 million won) already received from a new lessee (Article 2 of the Act on Special Cases). The rent may be increased at the time of the lease between a lessor and a new lessee, and the new lessee may not demand the base down payment due to the invalidation of this contract (Article 3(6) of the Act on Special Cases).

2. The parties' assertion

A. On November 2, 2018, the lessor F of the instant real estate concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s business type is laundry.