1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Facts of recognition

On August 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) around August 16, 2014, owned by the Defendant, leased the entire floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the 4th commercial buildings on the ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant at KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,150,000 from August 16, 2014 to August 16, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and (b) operated the call text (hereinafter “instant call text”) in the instant building.

The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed until August 16, 2016. On July 18, 2016, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to enter into the lease agreement by increasing the monthly rent by text messages.

On August 13, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted a premium contract in which the premium amount of the instant real estate was KRW 50,000,000 (hereinafter “the premium contract in this case”) between D and D.

On August 24, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to terminate the instant lease agreement by text messages and to enter into a lease agreement with the new lessee D, and on August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff sent the file of the instant premium contract to the Defendant by text messages.

On the same day, the defendant sent a text message to the effect that the plaintiff is unable to accept the content without any ground.

As of November 24, 2016, the appraised value of the instant call text is KRW 39,752,00.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the appraisal result by the appraiser E of the first instance trial, the gist of the parties' assertion in the whole purport of the argument of the parties, as a whole, was implicitly renewed, and the lease contract of this case was terminated on Nov. 24, 2016, which was three months after the plaintiff notified the termination

On August 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to enter into a lease agreement with a new lessee D several times. However, the Defendant refuses to collect the premium without justifiable grounds.