1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

On June 21, 2008, the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant a deposit of KRW 170 million, monthly rent of KRW 4 million, and the lease term from July 20, 2008 to June 18, 2013, the amount of KRW 170,000,000 from the Defendant for the first floor of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Commercial Building (hereinafter “instant store”).

From around that time, the Plaintiff operated a mutual finite with “D” in the instant store.

On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the following terms: (a) monthly rent of KRW 7 million; and (b) the term of the lease from July 20, 2013 to July 19, 2014:

On July 19, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement that changed the term of lease from July 20, 2014 to July 19, 2015, among the previous conditions, with respect to the instant store.

(2) On January 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to cancel the lease contract of this case.

From around that time, the defendant colored a new lessee on March 10, 2015, and entered into a lease agreement between L and one other on March 10, 2015, which is KRW 200 million, KRW 10 million per month of rent (one year, KRW 11 million), and the term of lease from July 19, 2015 to January 19, 2018.

On July 18, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to acquire the Plaintiff’s house 13 million won on the condition that the Plaintiff did not restore the instant store to its original state.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's statements in Eul's Evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including the number of branch offices), and the summary of the plaintiff's argument in the whole purport of the argument of the plaintiff at the time of termination of the lease agreement of this case, the defendant directly operated the plaintiff at the store of this case. Thus, the plaintiff did not think the defendant that he/she would arrange for new lessee or receive premium from a new

However, unlike the defendant's horses, the third party leased the store of this case from the defendant.