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

A. The Defendant leased heading 201 and 202 of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building to the Plaintiff, but concluded a renewal contract on November 12, 2010 and February 12, 2013.

B. At the time of the termination of the above contract, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking delivery of a building with the Seoul Northern District Court 2015da46505.

In the above lawsuit, conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on May 9, 2016.

The conciliation provisions are as follows:

(A) The plaintiff in the conciliation clause is the defendant in this case, and the defendant is the plaintiff in this case. The building in the annexed list 1 and 2 refers to 201, 202, which is the object of the lease in this case). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On December 15, 2016, Plaintiff: (a) transferred facilities and goodwill to D on December 15, 2016; and (b) concluded a premium agreement with D to receive premium of KRW 400 million; and (c) requested the Defendant to conclude a lease agreement with D.

The defendant refused D's request to conclude a one-year contract with the plaintiff while the contract period is more than two years even though the defendant agreed on the deposit and the rent, which are the main conditions, and the premium contract concluded with D was nonexistent.

This is an illegal act that prevents the Plaintiff from receiving premiums in violation of the above adjustment clause.

Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 400 million for premiums.

The compensation of KRW 100 million, which is part of them, is claimed.

B. Defendant D presented a contract term of one year, 700,000 won per month (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and one-month gratuitous terms for remodeling.

This is not consistent with the above adjustment clause, and it is only rejected because it is unfavorable to the defendant. Therefore, it is not illegal to conclude a new lease contract or violates the adjustment clause.

3. new.