1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) In the first instance court’s decision, the first instance court’s decision is justifiable even if all of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff was examined, without significantly different from the grounds alleged in the first instance court while filing an appeal by the Plaintiff. In addition, the second instance judgment of the first instance court’s decision of the second instance is added to the following parts.

According to the statement in the evidence No. 2 of this case, although it is important to not recognize the premium for the building of this case (Article 5 of the Special Agreement), the plaintiff, a lessee, would have discussed the termination of the lease of this case without notifying the defendant of the conclusion of the contract, unlike the above special agreement, even though it was an important contract (Article 10-4 of the Special Agreement). The defendant's refusal to conclude the lease contract with the new lessee on June 1, 2017 is not the period for protecting the opportunity to recover the premium (from February 19, 2018, up to six months before the expiration of the lease of this case) under Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (Article 10-4 of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, which was amended by Act No. 15791 of Oct. 16, 2018, which was amended by Act No. 15791 of Oct. 16, 2018).