1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 30, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) set the lease term as one year; (b) leased the second floor of the building located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”); (c) extended the lease term every year by one year after extending the lease term to one year; and (d) operated the instant store with the name “D” in the instant building.

The final lease deposit stipulated in the instant lease agreement is KRW 50 million, and the rent is KRW 2.73 million per month.

B. On October 29, 2014, the Defendant knew the Plaintiff that the instant building would be reconstructed after May 2015, which is the scheduled date of the construction of the next building. In other words, around September 1, 2015, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to restore the instant store to its original state and deliver the instant building by no later than November 30, 2015, by notifying the Plaintiff that the instant building could not be renewed, as it is expected to remodel the instant building on or around September 1, 2015.

C. After that, around September 23, 2015, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to enter into a new lease agreement with a person arranged by the Plaintiff as a new lessee. However, the Defendant rejected this.

On December 12, 2015, the Plaintiff returned the lease deposit from the Defendant and delivered the instant store to the Defendant.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, Gap 8 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. In order to receive the premium for the instant store on August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) concluded a premium transfer contract with Nonparty E by designating KRW 60 million; and (b) received KRW 6 million from E as a down payment; (c) the Defendant refused to enter into a lease contract with a new lessee arranged by the Plaintiff without justifiable grounds pursuant to Article 10-4(1)4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act; and (d) thus, even if the Plaintiff could not interfere with receiving the premium from Nonparty E, the Plaintiff’s payment of the premium.