A. On September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2019, with regard to the stores located in the first floor or in the second floor (hereinafter “instant stores”), among the buildings of KRW 5,000,000 owned by the Defendant, and operated the stores after paying the deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant.

B. Of that, around June 12, 2018, Nonparty F paid KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff as the security deposit and the price for goods, and thereafter, Nonparty F paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant by May 31, 2019, and operated the instant store.

C. On July 11, 2019, F brought an action against the Defendant to compensate the Defendant for damages equivalent to the above deposit and the price of goods, stating that “The Defendant, despite having agreed to establish a new lease agreement between F and the Defendant with the consent of the acquisition by transfer of the lease agreement between F and F, the Defendant incurred damages by concluding a lease agreement with a third party on a pro rata basis.”

(G) The Defendant asserted that “F would return to the Plaintiff the remainder remaining after deducting the unpaid rent and loss since F merely did not bring about the issue as the Plaintiff’s partner and did not receive the notification of the transfer of the security deposit claim.” While the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant expired on August 31, 2019, F left some of the instant stores, such as a cooling house, while the Plaintiff and the Defendant still occupied part of the instant stores and filed a counterclaim to deliver it.

(hereinafter referred to as the “related lawsuit” in combination with the above principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, the same court 2019Gudan3526, hereinafter referred to as “the above principal lawsuit”).

On November 26, 2019, the court dismissed the claim of the principal lawsuit on the grounds that it is insufficient to recognize that F acquired the right of lease with the consent of the defendant, while accepting the claim of the defendant's counterclaim.