1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 25, 2004, the Defendant leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,835,000, management fee of KRW 620,00, rental fee of KRW 620,00, rental period of KRW 620,00, and rental period of June 24, 2004 to the Plaintiff as of June 24, 2005, with each point of (a) part of (a) the retail store of 199.92 square meters in the part of (a) in the attached Form No. 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 1 among the real estate listed in the attached list, to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant impliedly renewed the instant lease agreement. On December 23, 2014 and April 10, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail, stating that “The instant lease agreement is to be renewed, without any intention to renew it, to deliver the instant real estate at the expiration of the contract period.”

C. In the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Kadan5224615 (Delivery, etc. of Main Offices), and in the case of damages (Counterclaim) between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, the principal lawsuit is as to the Plaintiff.

The judgment was rendered to deliver the leased object stated in the subsection to the reimbursement of KRW 50,000,000 for the lease deposit, and the counterclaim of the same cause was dismissed for the reason of significant delay in the litigation procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Plaintiff’s determination as to the assertion, that obstructed the Defendant’s receipt of KRW 150,000 premium by refusing a lease agreement with C that the Defendant wishes to become a new lessee with respect to the instant real estate on or around May 2015 without justifiable grounds, and thus, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay KRW 150,000,000 to the Defendant for damages equivalent to the said premium pursuant to Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

In full view of the testimony of the witness C, C, arranged by the Plaintiff, did not have any direct face-to-face talked by the Defendant or the Defendant D, and C, respectively.