1. The defendant and the plaintiff KRW 20,631,285, among them:

(a) From August 1, 2018 to May 8, 2019, KRW 14,492,00.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, under the name of C, with the terms that the deposit for the lease of the Daejeon Seo-gu D E (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) owned by the Defendant is KRW 3 million, monthly rent is KRW 250,000,000, and the lease term is KRW 24 months from the delivery date ( August 10, 2013). At that time, the Plaintiff leased the instant shopping mall from G and operated the instant shopping mall with the trade name “H” in the said shopping mall and the said F.

B. On July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, under the name of C, with regard to the instant commercial building, with the content that the lease deposit amount is KRW 6 million and the monthly rent is KRW 300,000,000, respectively, and the lease term is 12 months from the delivery date ( August 10, 2015).

C. On July 10, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with each of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 6 million, monthly rent amounting to KRW 300,000,000, while extending the lease period by two years, and as a lessee who is not C, himself/herself (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The following matters are stated in the column for the special agreement.

No facility cost, premium, etc. may be claimed, and there is no re-contract after the expiration of the contract term.

On April 10, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a premium agreement for the lease of a commercial building with the amount of KRW 100 million as to the instant commercial building and the said subparagraph.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Decision 1 on the part concerning the claim for damages due to interference with the collection of premiums) The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant, without justifiable grounds, obstructed the plaintiff's rejection of a lease agreement with I arranged by the plaintiff and thereby receiving premiums. Thus, the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter "Commercial Building Lease Protection Act").