1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant shall be 30 million won from the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (the instant lease agreement) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 2 million, and the lease term from April 21, 2014 to April 20, 2016.

B. According to a special contract under the instant lease agreement, the lessee shall pay the late payment charge of 12% per annum at the time of delinquency in the rent, and may conduct construction works for 20 days after the remainder, and the first monthly rent shall be calculated from May 10, 2014.

C. On April 21, 2014, the Defendant paid deposit of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, and received delivery of the instant store and operated E points at the said store.

On December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that “(i) the lease deposit shall be KRW 30 million from January 1, 2016 to KRW 50,700,000 from January 1, 2016; (ii) the monthly rent shall not be maintained as at present; and (iii) the lease deposit shall be KRW 2,207,00 from January 1, 2016 to KRW 2,200 from January 1, 2016 to KRW 2,207,00 from January 1, 201; and (iv) the lease deposit shall be implemented by choosing one between the maintenance as at present; and (iii) the renewal of the lease shall be refused if the Defendant refuses it.”

E. On April 7, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the purport that the Plaintiff’s increase in rent, etc. was excessive compared to the surrounding market price, and that it would not accept it, and that it would wish to renew the instant lease agreement with the same content as the previous one.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 (including where there are provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff exercised the right to claim an increase in rent, etc. under Article 11 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and the Defendant around that time.