1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 17, 201, the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant the building of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) KRW 301 and KRW 323.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) for a period from February 17, 2011 to February 16, 2016, the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million, and KRW 4.7 million per month.

B. On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was aware that the Defendant did not wish to renew the above lease agreement, sent a notice verifying the content of the contract to the Defendant, requesting the Defendant to enter into a lease agreement with E on December 7, 2015, on a premium of KRW 140 million between E and the person who will take over the instant store.

C. On December 11, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail stating that “the Plaintiff is unable to enter into a lease agreement with a new lessee arranged by the Plaintiff.”

The Plaintiff delivered the instant store to the Defendant upon the expiration of the above lease term, and thereafter the Defendant removed the instant building containing the instant store, and the present site for the said building is the state of site.

E. The provisions of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act in relation to the instant case are as follows.

Article 10-4 (Protection, etc. of Opportunity to Collect Premiums) (1) No lessor shall interfere with receiving premiums from a person who intends to become a new lessee arranged by a lessee according to a premium contract by engaging in any of the following acts from three months before the lease term expires to the end of the lease:

Provided, That the same shall not apply where any ground falling under any subparagraph of Article 10 (1) exists.

4. Other acts that a lessor refuses to conclude a lease contract with a person arranged by the lessee as a new lessee without justifiable grounds.