1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2011, the Plaintiff leased one floor among the main complex buildings on the land of Seodaemun-gu Seoul and 14 lots (hereinafter “instant store”) to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 700 million, monthly rent of KRW 18 million (the first year is KRW 17 million), and the period of lease of KRW 84 months from the date of delivery of the instant store.

B. On March 31, 201, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 70 million, KRW 10 million on April 29, 2011, KRW 230 million on May 30, 201, and KRW 400 million on June 9, 201.

C. Meanwhile, on August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the content that deposit is KRW 800 million, and that it is KRW 17 million per month.

The Defendant sold the instant store on April 19, 2016, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of buyer on April 26, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant received KRW 100 million premium from the Plaintiff on April 29, 201, even though there was no reason to receive the premium because the instant store does not have any facility in the instant store. In such a case, even though the Defendant was obligated to lease the instant store to a third party to recover the said premium, the Defendant sold the said store during the lease period, thereby causing damage equivalent to the said premium, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the said damage.

B. In light of the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the above KRW 100 million was paid as premium, and the Defendant is obligated to lease the instant store to a third party.

It is insufficient to recognize that selling the store of this case constitutes a tort, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if the above KRW 100 million was paid as premium, the right to lease that the premium continues to continue to exist over a given period after receiving it.