1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 1,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 14, 2015 to January 24, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that part 3.31 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) of the second floor of the fourth floor located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the entire building of this case”) shall be KRW 1 million as the lease deposit, KRW 300,000 per month of rent, and KRW 300,000 from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and operated the “D Real Estate Agent Office” upon delivery of the instant building on the same day.

B. The Defendant became aware of the fact that the entire building of this case invadeds the neighboring land, and performed the construction of the entire building of this case from April 2015, and the Plaintiff delivered the building of this case to the Defendant around April 1, 2015.

C. The second floor of the instant entire building was divided into a 60m2, a 60m2, a 3.31m2, a 1st floor of the instant building, and a 3rd floor, and a stairs which are partitioned into a 3st floor. However, the instant building was removed in the course of removing a part of the adjacent land erosion among the entire building of the instant case, and as a result of the completion of a large-scale repair work of the instant entire building on August 31, 2015, the part of the instant building was partitioned into a 58.74m2, a 58.74m2, a 1st floor, and a 3st floor of the instant entire building. The instant building became nonexistent.

【Ground of recognition】 In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 4, 5, Eul evidence 6-1 through 3, Eul evidence 6-1 through 7, and the purport of whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (i) The Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim for damages equivalent to operating income (i.e., the Defendant, after substantial repair of the entire building of this case, made a false statement to the Plaintiff that the instant building will be held on behalf of the Plaintiff, and did not return the instant building after completion of substantial repair construction even though it was delivered by the Plaintiff, and the instant lease agreement is implied.