1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

3. The plaintiff's request for suspension of execution is dismissed.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries and images of Gap evidence 5 through 16, Gap evidence 17-1 through 50, Eul evidence 1 through 6, and Eul evidence 1 through 6:

On November 5, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for a lease agreement with the Defendant on 808 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) out of 1544-4 large 10,308 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), among the 1544-9 square meters of Sincho-si, Youngyang-si, 154-4 large 10,308.9 square meters of a sports facility operating business, yacht club operating business, yacht club operating business, water leisure business, etc.

B. On November 23, 2007, the Defendant responded to the Plaintiff on the condition that “the instant land can be used only for the term of lease as the land created for the purpose of sale, and shall be borne by the lessee at the end of the term of lease after the use of the instant land, and shall be restored to its original state at the end of the term of lease.”

C. Accordingly, the plaintiff agreed to accept the above condition and on December 24, 2007, with respect to the land of this case between the defendant and the defendant, the term of existence shall be six months from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008, and the period may be extended upon the plaintiff's request to the extent that it does not interfere with the defendant's business objective. Upon the termination of the contract, the plaintiff shall restore the leased object to its original state and return it to Gap without delay.

Then, a lease agreement was concluded.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). D.

The Plaintiff operated a yacht club business with the permission for exclusive use of harbor facilities of 1544-2 public waters of 589 square meters in Seocho-si, Seocho-gu, Gangwon-do. The said permission was extended every year for an extension of the period and extended until October 28, 2013.

E. Since then, the term of the instant lease agreement has been extended by six months. However, on June 28, 201, the Defendant stated that “the period of the instant lease agreement shall be reduced by two months after the sales plan for the instant land was calculated,” to the Plaintiff on a two-month basis.