1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The status of the parties is that the Plaintiff is an intention to operate the Em-type outdoor department on the first floor and the first floor underground of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cbuilding (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) by leasing the first floor, the first floor, and the second floor from the D Financial Cooperative.

The Defendant is a doctor who had been operating F Council members (the subject of medical treatment) by leasing part of the second floor of the instant building from the Plaintiff.

On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff’s spouse G, who entered into a sub-lease contract on part of the second floor of the instant building, leased the instant second floor from the DF to January 31, 202, by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 200,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 22,968,720, and monthly management fee of KRW 6,241,50 (excluding each value-added tax), and the lease period of KRW 6,241,50 (excluding each value-added tax), and operated H members.

G reported the closure of the H Council member on September 6, 2016, and the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D Financial Cooperative on September 7, 2016, changing the lessee of the said lease agreement from G to the Plaintiff.

On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a sub-lease contract (hereinafter “sub-lease contract of this case”) with the Defendant with respect to some of the second floor of the instant building (including one president, four rooms, one two rooms, and one room; hereinafter “sub-lease”) on a monthly rent of 10,000,000 (including general management expenses) and the sub-lease period from January 23, 2017 to January 22, 2018. The Plaintiff entered into a sub-lease contract of this case with the Defendant with the second floor of the instant building (hereinafter “sub-lease contract of this case”). The Defendant used the second floor of the instant building to jointly use with the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant sub-lease contract was terminated by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, on the ground that the trust relationship with the Defendant was broken down and it is impossible for the Defendant to maintain the instant sub-lease contract. On July 22, 2017, the Defendant retired from the sub-lease part of this case.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap, A.