1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 40 million and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 7, 2015 to September 7, 2016, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 8, 2007, the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant the first floor of 81.1 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant store”) among the land buildings in Suwon-gu, Busan, Suwon-gu (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”) at KRW 2 years, lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million, and KRW 600,000 per month for rent.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant renewed the above lease agreement twice, and renewed the lease agreement by setting the lease agreement as KRW 20 million by September 24, 2014 and September 24, 2015, KRW 20 million by September 24, 2015, and KRW 1.2 million by month of rent.

C. On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff operated a restaurant with the trade name “D” at the instant store, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she had no intention to renew the lease agreement, and sent a content-certified mail demanding delivery of the instant store at the expiration of the lease period.

On July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a letter verifying the content that the Defendant cooperates with the Defendant to recover the premium pursuant to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. However, on August 10, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a letter verifying the content that “The Defendant did not intend to lease the leased object to any other person, and is scheduled to operate the leased object directly due to the type of business different, and is preparing a letter of estimate related to the internal interior interior interior decoration, etc., so the Plaintiff sent a letter verifying the content to the effect that “the delivery of the instant store is demanded after the expiration of the lease term.”

E. On August 22, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance premium agreement with E and E to transfer the goodwill of D restaurant in KRW 60 million, and on August 25, 2015, notified the Defendant of his/her intent and ability to perform his/her obligations as E and lessee, and sent content-certified mail requesting the conclusion of a lease agreement with E.

On August 31, 2015, the Defendant: (a) stated to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2015, that “it is not possible to recognize the premium between the Plaintiff and E, and it is clearly known that the Plaintiff did not intend to conclude a lease contract with the transferee.