1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000 with respect to the building on the land of Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”). On July 7, 2012, the Plaintiff increased the monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000, while the lease term was renewed to 12 months from that time.

B. On February 18, 2014, when the Plaintiff leased the instant building and operated the restaurant business, the Plaintiff delivered the said building to the Defendant, and received KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant on February 19, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant unilaterally demanded the Plaintiff to deliver the building despite the expiration of the lease term, which constitutes a lessor’s nonperformance of obligation, and thus, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract.

The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 67,926,388, excluding KRW 20,000,000 returned by the Defendant in the amount of KRW 85,714, premium 48,04,50, premium 34,174, the sum of KRW 87,926,388, which is the sum of KRW 20,00,000,000, and KRW 67,926,388, which is the sum of KRW 34,196,174.

B. The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to terminate the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant completed the settlement by paying the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 20,000,000 to KRW 15,00,000, including the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000, and facility costs, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. In determining whether the Defendant unilaterally demanded the Plaintiff to transfer the building, the following was examined: (a) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the nonperformance of the obligation of the lessor; and (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the aforementioned evidence, witness D’s testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings.