1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) concluded a lease agreement with Defendant C’s broker, stipulating that “The instant store shall be leased KRW 10 million, monthly rent, KRW 700,000,000 from September 30, 2013 to September 29, 2015; (b) the lessor may terminate this contract at the time of arrears of at least three years; and (c) the issue of authorization and permission is liable to the lessee.” (d) concluded a lease agreement with the condition that “The instant store shall be leased free of charge on November 12, 2013,” and paid KRW 1 million out of the deposit as down payment.

The building of this case was registered in the building ledger around June 1, 2012 on the ground that the number of households for the second floor through fourth floor of the building was increased without obtaining permission for large-scale repair from the ordering market pursuant to Article 11 of the Building Act.

The purpose of the instant store was the first class neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) on the building ledger from the time the use of the instant building was approved, but the use of the instant store was changed to the second class neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants) on October 17, 2013 after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement.

On September 2013, the Plaintiff received the delivery of the instant store, and thereafter performed the Rotterdam construction. On October 17, 2013, the Plaintiff reported the business as F (general restaurant) but did not commence the business, and reported the closure of the business on June 27, 2014.

As the deceased D died on March 18, 2014, Defendant B succeeded to the deceased’s inherited property as the mother of the deceased, and was subject to a qualified acceptance trial by the Seoul Family Court on July 25, 2014.

【In the absence of any dispute, the Plaintiff concluded the instant lease contract with the aim of running the first-class neighborhood living facilities (retail stores) or the first-class neighborhood living facilities (retailing restaurants) at the store in this case, as a result of the fact-finding on Gap's 1, 5, 6, 8, Eul's evidence, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and each fact-finding on the strike market.