1. The part requesting the delivery of a building after restoration among the counterclaims of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The principal lawsuit of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. On January 29, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D, the owner of the building at the time of the second and third floors (hereinafter “instant building”) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”), whereby the lease agreement was entered into between KRW 10 million, KRW 80,000,000, monthly rent, and KRW 880,000,000 from January 29, 201 to January 28, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and operated the reading room in the said building.

B. After Defendant B purchased the instant building from D, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 30, 2013.

C. On December 30, 2013, Defendant B succeeded to the lessor’s status of the instant lease agreement, and drafted a new lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the same terms and conditions as the instant lease agreement.

On August 7, 2015 and August 20, 2015, Defendant B notified the Plaintiff that he/she had no intent to renew the instant lease contract.

E. Defendant C purchased the instant building from Defendant B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 14, 2016.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, 3, Eul 3 and 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Although Defendant B introduced E as a new lessee, Defendant B refused to conclude a lease agreement with Defendant C, even if the Plaintiff sold the instant building to Defendant C.

As such, Defendant B’s above act lost the opportunity to recover the premium under the instant lease agreement. Thus, the above Defendant should pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million, which is equivalent to the premium that was payable from E pursuant to Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

Since the Plaintiff discontinued reading room business around November 2015 and delivered the instant building, the Defendant succeeded to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement.