1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 8,533,549 and interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from January 27, 2015 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The hotel (B) of this case is a hotel for sale in lots, each guest room is owned by sectional owners, and the defendant leases each guest room from sectional owners at the time of sale in lots, and at the same time, entrusts the management and operation of the hotel of this case with the management and operation of the hotel of this case to the sectional owners.

The plaintiff is a co-owner of the guest room No. 807 of the hotel of this case.

B. On April 2, 2004, the Plaintiff leased the above 807 subparagraph to the Defendant for use as a hotel for a period of 10 years from the day following the commencement of the business for exclusive use of the hotel, and at the same time, concluded the instant entrustment contract (asset lease contract and asset management entrustment contract) with the Defendant operating the hotel for the above period to pay the Plaintiff profits from the operation of the hotel.

C. On August 21, 2013, the Defendant’s representative director and directors, C, D, and E were indicted on October 31, 2014 under the Busan District Court Support 2013Rahap149 and sentenced to a conviction on occupational embezzlement, etc., and the appeal court is still in progress (Seoul High Court 2014No807).

On August 23, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant consignment contract was terminated on September 1, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 7, No. 8, and No. 9

2. The parties' assertion

A. On August 21, 2013, the complaint of the Plaintiff-owner of the instant hotel, prosecuted C, D, and E, the Defendant’s management on August 21, 2013, as Busan District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch of the Busan District Court, the Defendant terminated the instant consignment contract with the Defendant on August 23, 2013, since the instant consignment contract was terminated for the purpose of retaliationing only the Plaintiff who made efforts in the instant criminal case among the 400 co-owners who concluded the consignment contract with the Defendant on August 23, 2013, and as such, the termination of the instant consignment contract as of August 23, 2013 is null and void.

Even if the defendant is recognized to be free to terminate the delegation contract pursuant to Article 689(1) of the Civil Code, the above termination is valid, without any inevitable reason, pursuant to Article 689(2) of the Civil Code.