1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 1, 2012, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant was completed on the ground of sale on April 16, 2012 with respect to Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C apartment shopping mall D (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. The Plaintiff, as a licensed real estate agent from around 2003, run the real estate brokerage business under the name of the “E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” at the instant store. On May 2009, the Defendant, who was a male and female, obtained the qualification of licensed real estate agent, operated the said real estate brokerage office under the name of the Defendant.

C. From May 2009, the Defendant: (a) performed a licensed real estate agent’s business at the above brokerage office; and (b) discontinued the said brokerage office on October 22, 2015.

On the other hand, regarding the store of this case as of May 14, 2015, the lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) was concluded between May 14, 2015 and May 13, 2017, with regard to the lessor, the Plaintiff, the lease deposit amount of KRW 150 million, and the lease term of KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000.

E. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the business registration for the instant store in the name of the Plaintiff, and subsequently, on August 19, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained a fixed date from the instant lease agreement, and revised the business registration by submitting the said lease agreement to the old Lane.

F. On October 31, 2016 and November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the said lease agreement on the ground that the auction procedure for the instant store was initiated.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 4, 5 evidence, Eul 2 and 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff purchased the instant store under the name of the Defendant, and concluded a lease contract with the Defendant, divided into a lease deposit with the remainder of KRW 150,000,000,000 other than the purchase price, on the part of the said store.

(2) However, since the above lease contract was terminated, the defendant is against the plaintiff.