1. The Defendant’s KRW 39,266,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 26, 2019 to October 14, 2020 for the Plaintiff.

On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting a deposit amount of KRW 21 million, monthly rent of KRW 80,000,000, and the lease term of April 22, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the entire underground of KRW 93.19 square meters (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) among the three neighborhood living facilities in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Nowon-gu, and D E ground reinforced concrete structure.

On April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the acquisition or transfer of the right to the commercial building, between F and F, which had engaged in entertainment tavern business, to set the premium of KRW 45 million and to take over the said facility. On April 10, 2015 and April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 45 million for the premium to F.

On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was engaged in entertainment tavern business upon obtaining a business license from G in the instant commercial building. On April 23, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with a view to increasing the monthly rent from KRW 800,000 to KRW 90,000,000, and the lease term is extended until April 22, 2019.

On December 4, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the acquisition of rights to the commercial building between H and H to determine the premium as KRW 45 million and to transfer the said facility, and received KRW 500,000 from H to the down payment.

On December 4, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the transfer of the business and facilities of the above commercial building to H and the acquisition or transfer of the above commercial building rights. The Defendant refused to enter into a new lease agreement that the Plaintiff should use.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the statements in Gap 1-10 evidence, and the grounds for the plaintiff's claim as to the whole purport of the argument, the defendant, without justifiable grounds, rejected the plaintiff's lease contract with the new lessee arranged by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff's opportunity to recover the premium was infringed.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.