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 October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a first lease agreement with Defendant B on the instant store, and agreed on the increase of business rent to be terminated, and entered into a second lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant B on September 7, 2016, on October 15, 2016, with the lease deposit of KRW 15 million, monthly rent of KRW 710,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 710,000, and the lease period from October 14, 2017.

B. The instant store is used as a Chinese restaurant with the trade name “D”.

C. On September 22, 2017, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground that “Defendant B subleted the instant store to Defendant C without permission by content-certified mail, and this did not meet the obligation to sublet the instant store without the lessor’s consent as stipulated in paragraph (3) of the Special Agreement on Lease.”

Defendant B demanded the renewal of the instant lease agreement from six months before the instant lease agreement, and around October 11, 2017, Defendant B notified the Plaintiff of the claim for the termination of the instant lease agreement by content-certified mail.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that a dispute is not or is not clearly disputed, entry in Gap 1-6, Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The key issue is the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B had lent the name to Defendant C or lent the name without permission. The Defendants are in a partnership business relationship between the Defendants (Defendant B 1: Defendant C9%) rather than lending the name, and even if not, the Defendants are in a family relationship, and thus, the Plaintiff’s right to terminate the contract is limited, as the Defendants were in a family relationship. Thus, the key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff’s right to cancel the contract is limited, as the lessor’s right to cancel the contract is not a consideration for a lessor’s acts

B. (1) The fact of finding the judgment is earlier.