1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant to open the “Nice A” (hereinafter “instant coffee store”), which is a coffee sales store, to use the instant store only for the purpose of “general restaurant” (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), with the Defendant, by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 500 million, KRW 24 million, monthly rent (excluding monthly management fee, KRW 3.1 million and value-added tax) and the term of lease from November 17, 2013 to November 16, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the above lease deposit to the Defendant and operated the instant coffee sales store at the said store (hereinafter “instant lease”).

On April 1, 2015 and December 24, 2015, respectively, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written public notice demanding the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of integrative accumulatedness based on the sales progress at the coffee store. However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s said request.

On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff removed from the store of this case following the completion of the business of coffee stores in this case.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and a summary of the plaintiff's argument as to the purport of the whole argument, there was a mutual perception between the original defendant and the original defendant that the lease contract of this case was concluded for the coffee sales store business, and therefore the above coffee sales store business at the store of this case deals with the basis of the above lease contract.

However, since it is impossible to continue to conduct business due to the aggravation of business performance of the above coffee store, the business of the above coffee store was terminated and removed from the shop of this case. This constitutes a case where the objective circumstances, which form the basis of the contract, are changed.

In addition, even if the above lease is terminated even if it is terminated, the defendant's store of this case is different.