1. The part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance judgment shall be modified as follows.

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The court of first instance accepted part of the plaintiff's claim of the main lawsuit, and sentenced to the judgment dismissing all of the plaintiff's claim of the main lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim. The defendant appealed with respect to the part concerning the counterclaim among the judgment of the court of first instance. The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part concerning the defendant's claim

2. Determination on a counterclaim

A. The facts of recognition (1) around June 12, 2017, the Defendant received a content-certified mail stating the Plaintiff’s intent not to renew the lease contract, and entered into a premium contract of KRW 70 million between G and G that wishes to become a new lessee of the instant real estate around July 9, 2017, and received KRW 5 million down payment from G on the same day.

(2) On July 12, 2017, the Defendant arranged the Plaintiff to enter into a new lease agreement on the instant real estate while introducing the said G. In order to discuss the Plaintiff’s new lease agreement on July 25, 2017, the Plaintiff’s inside director I, the Defendant, and G.

In response to the plan for substantial repair of the entire building of this case, the above I explained to the effect that “the new lessee and the new lessee will enter into a new lease contract for the period from September 2018. However, from September 2018, it means a plan to remodel the whole building. This means removal or reconstruction, and it does not mean the time of construction and the required period, etc., and thus, it does not cause a right to request renewal of the contract and an opportunity to collect the premium from September 2018.”

(3) According to the large-scale repair plan for the entire building of this case, the Plaintiff was a plan to remodel the basic framework of the building of this case to use it as the Plaintiff’s company’s business house by entirely remodelling the building of this case. The ground 1, 2, above the building of this case was a coffee store, and the ground 3, 4th and above were plans to use it as the coffee-related education facilities, offices, etc.

(4) Afterwards, the Defendant and G terminated the premium contract, and the Defendant.