1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff leased three floors of Seoul, Gangnam-gu, D, and E-ground buildings (hereinafter “instant stores”) as the lease deposit amounting to KRW 80 million, monthly rent of KRW 7 million (excluding value-added tax), monthly management expenses of KRW 1.9 million (excluding public charges and value-added tax), monthly management expenses (excluding value-added tax), and the lease period of KRW 1.9 million from May 1, 2014 to April 30, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Even after the expiration of the lease term, the instant lease agreement has an implied renewal, and its effect has been terminated on August 31, 2017 due to the termination of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

C. On September 1, 2017, the Defendant leased the instant store to F as KRW 80 million, monthly rent of KRW 7.8 million (excluding value-added tax), monthly management expenses of KRW 1.9 million (excluding public charges and value-added tax), and the lease period of KRW 1.9 million (excluding public charges and value-added tax), from September 1, 2017 to August 31, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) agreed to pay management expenses according to the prescribed purpose at the time of concluding the instant lease agreement.

Management expenses not disbursed for the purpose determined by the defendant shall not be effective under the agreement on management expenses.

Therefore, the defendant should return the full amount of the management expenses paid by the plaintiff as unjust enrichment because it did not use it for the specified purpose.

B) Even if the validity of the management fee agreement is recognized with respect to the management expenses paid by the Plaintiff, such agreement is concluded to the extent that the management expenses are not used for the purpose of the management expenses, and there is no interest to the Plaintiff and only interest to the Defendant. Thus, this agreement is null and void against Article 103 of the Civil Act, as it is remarkably unfair and unfair provisions to the Plaintiff.