1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Fact-finding, on February 17, 2012, the Defendant leased a first floor store of the building D located in Jeju (hereinafter “instant store”) to the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) by setting the deposit amount of KRW 18,00,000, annual rent of KRW 16,000,000, and the period of February 17, 2013.

After that, the lease continued to be renewed until the death of the deceased.

The plaintiff married with the deceased, and had son E and F with the deceased, and divorced from the deceased.

The Deceased died on August 8, 2015, and thereafter the Plaintiff operated the store of this case until now.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of both parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff, while entering into a lease agreement on the store of this case with the Defendant, paid the premium to the previous lessee during the period of time.

After the death of the deceased, the Plaintiff entered into an implied lease agreement with the Defendant to provide the lessee with respect to the instant store.

Even if it is not recognized that an implied rental agreement was concluded, the Plaintiff argued on July 30, 2018 that the deceased’s heir (the deceased’s mother G, E, and F) as well as not only the deceased’s father but also the mother of the deceased as the deceased’s heir. However, the conclusion of this judgment does not affect any conclusion.

It is the notification to the defendant of the acquisition of the above right through the service of the preparatory document dated August 2, 2018, which was acquired by the deceased's right under the lease contract concluded by the deceased.

However, in September 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to enter into a lease agreement with a new lessee by seeking a person who intends to become a new lessee, but the Defendant rejected it, and notified the Plaintiff that the lease agreement will not be renewed.

As such, the Defendant interfered with the Plaintiff’s collection of the premium for the instant store from a person who intends to become a new lessee, pursuant to Article 10-4(1)4 and (3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.