1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On February 20, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 2300,000,000, from March 2016 to January 2021, and the premium of KRW 42 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

Under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid the premium of KRW 42 million to D, the Defendant, who attempted to conclude the instant lease agreement.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the delivery of the instant store due to the termination of the instant lease agreement as Suwon District Court 2017dan16071.

(hereinafter “Prior Action Litigation”). In the prior lawsuit, the court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation, such as ordering the delivery of the store of this case, and the said decision became final and conclusive as is.

C. Around that time, the Plaintiff received a promise from the Defendant to guarantee the premium under the instant lease agreement, and sought a new lessee to operate the instant store and introduce it to the Defendant for the purpose of collecting the premium.

However, the Defendant subsequently obstructed the collection of the Plaintiff’s premium by failing to contact the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above premium.

2. The instant claim is based on the premise that the Plaintiff is a party under the instant lease agreement.

Therefore, in full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the following facts and the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 1, and 1 as to whether the Plaintiff is a party to the instant lease agreement, the mere fact of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 can be readily concluded as the Plaintiff under the instant lease agreement.