1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 15, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 40 million for the building D, E, and F (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), monthly rent of KRW 1.6 million (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). On February 15, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 1.6 million for the building D, E, and F (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), and operated the instant restaurant with “G” upon delivery of the said restaurant.

B. On October 20, 2018, the Plaintiff received KRW 7.5 million from H and transferred the said restaurant business to H. On the same day, H entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the same day with the lease deposit of KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.2 million, and the lease term of KRW 41 months until March 8, 2022, and began to operate the instant restaurant upon delivery from the Plaintiff.

C. Meanwhile, in addition to the instant restaurant building, the Defendant also owns the I-ground and J-ground buildings, and directly operates the said I-ground cafeteria.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including evidence attached with each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The part of damages caused by the reduction of premium is the wind to increase the monthly rent to the new lessee after the plaintiff, in violation of the above promise, even though the defendant promised to not raise the monthly rent to the new lessee after the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered damages not only 7.5 million won by reducing the amount which the plaintiff originally agreed to receive KRW 15 million in the transfer of restaurant business to H. The plaintiff suffered losses by reducing the amount of the premium at 7.5 million won. This act of the defendant is not only a violation of the agreement with the plaintiff, but also a violation of Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, which constitutes a tort that interferes with the collection of premium, and thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate for damages of KRW 7.5 million suffered by the plaintiff.