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. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the owner of the second floor house and store building in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On May 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the store No. 103 of the instant building with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1,300,000 (a management fee of KRW 50,000 and value-added tax shall be separately), and from June 13, 2015 to June 13, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and operated a coffee specialty with a trade name “D” from the beginning of the lease term until the expiration of the lease term.

C. On February 11, 2017, E entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the store No. 101 of the instant building, and operated a coffee specialty, which is the same type of business as the Plaintiff, from March 18, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that during the term of the instant lease agreement, E knew or could have known of the fact that E would operate the same category of coffee store, which is the same as the Plaintiff, at the store No. 101 of the instant building, the Defendant made it inevitable for the Plaintiff to waive its operation by concluding a lease agreement with E.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 60,435,608, excluding KRW 11,700,000, which the Plaintiff did not pay to the Defendant for the nine-month rent from the facility cost invested in the coffee specialty, namely, KRW 72,135,608, which was incurred by the Plaintiff as a performance of the obligation to compensate for damages due to nonperformance.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 9 and the entire pleadings, the fact that water leakage occurred due to the water pipe wave of the second floor on January 23, 2016, and that around that time, the Plaintiff was hindered in the Plaintiff’s coffee store business. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was at the time.