1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,533,33 of the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from April 15, 2016 to November 18, 2016.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the instant building by setting the deposit amount of KRW 230 million, monthly rent of KRW 8.5 million (the last day of each month), and the term of lease from April 14, 2015 to April 14, 2016, and additionally paid KRW 30 million,00,000,000,000, which was raised in the deposit amount of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000 from April 14, 2015 to April 14, 2016.

On February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a premium contract with E to be a new lessee and KRW 80 million for the instant building, and received KRW 8 million as a down payment. At that time, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to conclude a lease contract with E and to conclude a lease contract with E.

The Plaintiff returned 8 million won of the down payment to E on March 10, 2016, when the Plaintiff failed to conclude a lease contract with the Defendant, and returned the instant building to the Defendant on April 14, 2016.

2. Determination on the claim for damages equivalent to the premium

A. In order to conclude a lease contract with E arranged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserted that the instant building, which was not the original object of the lease, should be included, and that the monthly rent should be KRW 12 million.

As a result, E did not enter into a lease contract with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not receive the premium of KRW 80 million from E.

The Plaintiff’s above act requires that it is a significantly high-amount car in light of the rent amount of neighboring commercial buildings, as well as refusing to enter into a lease agreement with E without justifiable grounds, and constitutes an act that prevents the Plaintiff from receiving premiums from E.

Therefore, the defendant.