1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant and the incidental costs of appeal.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance and the plaintiff's grounds for incidental appeal are not significantly different from each of the allegations in the court of first instance. Even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance was presented to this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court seems to be not to prohibit the Plaintiff from receiving premiums from a person who intends to become a new lessee, as well as the validity of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, on the ground that it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is not the Defendant’s right to claim premiums, but is seeking compensation for damages arising from the Defendant’s obstruction of collecting premiums, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main part of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance court is just based on the conclusion, and both the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed as it is without merit.