The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim) raises an objection.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the agricultural and fishery products distribution business, etc., and the Defendant is a company that runs the fishery products wholesale business and retail business.

B. On January 20, 2017, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D Co., Ltd., the owner of the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Building C (hereinafter “instant building”). As to the instant building, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 180,000, monthly rent of KRW 1800,000, and from February 1, 2017 to January 31, 2018.

C. On January 31, 2017, the Defendant: (a) lent the instant building to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million; (b) monthly rent KRW 200,000 (excluding value-added tax); and (c) from February 1, 2017 to January 31, 2018; and (b) on the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant the sublease deposit.

On January 31, 2018, the Defendant did not dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the instant building was included in value-added tax, with the following: (a) the amount of KRW 10 million for sublease deposit and KRW 2,250,000 per month;

The sub-lease period from February 1, 2018 to January 31, 2019 was re-leased.

(hereinafter referred to as “the sub-lease of this case”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The term of the instant sub-lease was expired on January 31, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. In addition to the evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 2 of the judgment on the ground of the claim, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant the intent to terminate the instant sub-lease to the end of the contract of the instant sub-lease, and thereafter, it is recognized that the instant sub-lease was withdrawn from March 8, 2019 and the instant building was delivered to the Defendant. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant sub-lease was terminated on January 31, 2019, and the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, is the Plaintiff.