1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 22, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease a coffee shop (hereinafter referred to as “instant coffee shop”) located in the Geum-gun, Busan (hereinafter referred to as “instant coffee shop”) with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 20 million, and KRW 60,000,000 for a lease term of 60 months (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”), and paid to the Defendant as premium.

B. The Plaintiff received the instant coffee shop from the Defendant to operate the coffee shop, and went through a business progress. Around September 2016, the Plaintiff agreed on the instant lease with the Defendant. Around accepting the instant coffee shop, D entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, and paid the Plaintiff KRW 47 million as premium, and paid the Plaintiff KRW 40 million as premium.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness E and D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant demanded the increase of the deposit for lease in excess of the limit under Article 11 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”) and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and that the Plaintiff received KRW 40 million from the new lessee is applied mutatis mutandis under Article 10-4(1)1 and 4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, thereby hindering the collection of the deposit for lease. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes an act of hindering the collection of the deposit for lease by applying mutatis mutandis Article 10-4(1)1 and 4 of the Commercial Building Lease Lease Act. The Plaintiff’s claim constitutes an abuse of rights, and thus, constitutes an abuse of rights, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 4

3. According to the evidence and evidence stated earlier and the evidence stated in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the following facts are stated in the contract of the instant lease agreement as follows: (i) the fact that “the contract of the instant lease does not include any expense or facility cost separately; and (ii) the part “the lease agreement of the defendant and D on September 21, 2016” from the lessor.