The claim of this case is dismissed.

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

(a) the annexed list;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 18, 2002, the Plaintiff leased the first floor of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) from the Defendant from the Defendant for the period of November 3, 2007 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) by setting the deposit amount of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 2 million, and the lease period of KRW 2 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and thereafter operated the main point “C” in the instant commercial building from around that time.

B. Since then, the instant lease agreement has been explicitly or explicitly renewed several times while increasing the monthly rent, and finally, is determined by the end of the monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million and the lease period of November 3, 2019, the Defendant expressed its intent to refuse to renew the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff on September 23, 2019.

C. The Plaintiff did not pay monthly rent to the Defendant after August 5, 2019.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant refused to enter into a lease agreement with D arranged by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff interfered with collecting the premium for the instant commercial building by means of avoiding the intent of “to not lease the instant commercial building as the main store,” etc., at the licensed real estate agent office, of seeking payment of KRW 120 million remaining after deducting the deposit amount of KRW 30 million from the damage incurred to the Plaintiff.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff interfered with the collection of the Plaintiff’s deposit by only the written evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7 submitted by the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff is emphasizing a part of the telephone record, but it is not determined that the above assertion was proven solely with such a conversation). There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the claim of this case is without merit without examining further claims.

3. According to the above facts of determination on the counterclaim claim, the lease of this case.