1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant, who is the former lessee of the instant store, to lease a building Nos. 4, 5, and 72 square meters of the building located in Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant store”) owned by Nonparty D, and entered into an agreement with Nonparty D to pay the premium (hereinafter “the premium agreement”).

B. In relation to the premium contract of this case, three contracts were made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and in relation to the amount of the premium, the first contract (hereinafter referred to as “first contract”) contains the following: ① “The premium of this thousand won” and “the premium of this case shall be delivered to Article 9 (including attached goods)”; ② the second contract (hereinafter referred to as “second contract”) was output through computer work; and the premium of this case, “the total amount of this million won (25,000,000,000 won)”, “the contract amount of this case,00,000 won (2,50,000,000 won),” “the balance,000,0000 won (22,50,000,0000 won)”, “the premium of this case shall be delivered to 2014,44,4440,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “the premium of this case”) and the third contract (30,400,0040,000 won).”

C. At the time of the conclusion of the premium contract, the Defendant was the sales price for the store in this case with the store in this case, but one was the street store attached to the store in this case, and the other was installed on the front road of the store in this case, and is the street store store store that is managed by the F branch in the Modong-gu Seoul metropolitan area in this case (hereinafter “instant street store”).

In addition, it seems that there were other ods (see the video of No. 4-1). However, the present two odsives stand in the above two odsives, so it is not treated separately.

The Plaintiff’s store of this case around May 12, 2014.