1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff suffered damages due to the defendant's breach of the lease agreement or illegal acts as follows, and thus, he sought compensation.

Although the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for C (Public Notice) is guaranteed at least five-year lease period from June 1, 2012 to May 31, 2017 under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the Defendant asserted that the lease period was terminated on May 31, 2014, as stated in the contract, and concluded an unfair surrender execution even after the termination of the lease period.

The Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s facility investment and right while executing an explanation against the Plaintiff.

In relation to the leased object, the contents and the actual status of the contract were different, thereby violating the obligations of the lessor under the lease contract.

In the process of illegally expanding and removing a commercial building, which is the object of lease, the problem of the safety of the building occurs in the process, and the damage caused by water leakage was caused since waterproof measures were not taken on the rooftop.

As a result, the occupants of the Gosiwon resisted or declineded.

On February 2, 2014, the second singing part was neglected after the execution of the name, thereby hindering the business of the Gosiwon.

The Defendant posted the instant commercial building to be removed at will or to be in progress between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, thereby hindering the Plaintiff’s business.

In addition, since the occupants are not parties to a prestigious lawsuit, they were illegally executed even though the judgment against the plaintiff is not sufficient to execute the prestigious lawsuit.

Details and amount of damages claimed

2. The plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

With respect to the termination of a lease agreement and the enforcement of a clear order, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant constitutes a tort of execution of a clear order based on the Supreme Court Decision 2014Da5094237 Decided August 21, 2014 (the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of appeal on January 13, 2015).