1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the first instance judgment, with the exception that the court's reasoning for this part is as stated in Paragraph 2 of Article 1, "(1) of the first instance judgment," "(the facts that there is no dispute over a ground for recognition, facts that there is no dispute over a ground for recognition, evidence Nos. 1 through 7, evidence Nos. 9 through 12, evidence No. 1 of the first instance judgment, evidence No. 8 of the evidence No. 8, the video of the evidence No. 8 of the first instance judgment, and the purport of whole pleadings]," "No. 5 of the second instance judgment (the fact that there is no dispute over a ground for recognition, the purport of the whole entries and arguments of evidence No.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff be the monthly rent close to twice the previous monthly rent, and that the Plaintiff would directly engage in the business in the instant real estate, thereby making it impossible for the Plaintiff to recover the premium by acting as a new lessee. The Defendant’s act constitutes a nonperformance of obligations under the lease agreement or the good faith principle to guarantee the opportunity to recover the premium, constitutes an act of interference with collecting the premium under Article 10-4(1)4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, or an act of interference with collecting the premium under Article 750 of the Civil Act, and constitutes a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20,96,00,000, which is equivalent to the premium in the instant real estate, at the time of the termination of the lease agreement. 2) The Plaintiff removed any facility that the Plaintiff had no obligation to remove at the Defendant’s request, and paid KRW 3.8

As a result, the defendant obtained without any legal ground a profit equivalent to the above removal cost and suffered damages equivalent to the above amount to the plaintiff, so the defendant is obligated to return 380,000 won to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination of claim for damages 1) Articles 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act related to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (the opportunity to recover premiums).