The Defendant, as the Plaintiff

(a) an indication of drawings in the Annex, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (e), of the geographical floors of the buildings listed in the Annex List;

1. Basic facts

A. On July 26, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the instant store with a deposit of KRW 10 million; (b) 12 months from July 26, 2018 to July 25, 2019; and (c) 1320,000 won for rent monthly (including value-added tax, and 26,000 won after July 26, 2019) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and (d) after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant engaged in entertainment tavern business with the trade name “C” at the instant store.

B. On July 25, 2019, the instant lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was renewed once.

C. On June 18, 2020, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to renew the instant lease agreement, and around June 23, 2020, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff would refuse to renew the instant lease agreement on the ground of the Defendant’s act of sub-lease without permission.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On April 2019, the Defendant asserted that the instant store was sub-leased to D with the deposit amount of KRW 20 million and KRW 2320,000 per month without the Plaintiff’s consent. Since the Plaintiff may refuse the Defendant’s request for renewal of the contract pursuant to Article 10(1)4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the instant lease contract was terminated on July 25, 2020.

The Defendant filed a claim against the Defendant for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 1,320,000 per month from October 27, 2020 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store.

B. On June 18, 2020, the Defendant asserted that the instant lease agreement was renewed with the same content as the previous agreement, since the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to renew the instant lease agreement by content-certified mail.

The defendant entered into a water supply contract with D and D with a premium of KRW 67 million to transfer the right to operate the store of this case, and the plaintiff does not sublease the store of this case to D.