The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A judgment of the first instance court in the purport of the claim and appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 1, 2017, C, the Plaintiff’s mother and agent, entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant’s mother and agent, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 1,000,000,000,000,000 for the underground portion of the ground building D and Jinjin-si, the agent

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

D From March 2015, from around 2015, D operated the instant store with the trade name “F”. Since concluding the instant lease contract, C was paid KRW 15 million as the premium for the facility of the instant store.

C. On March 30, 2018, the Defendant sold the H land and the ground building at KRW 277 million to G, including the instant store.

The buyer succeeded to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff’s agent C continued to conduct business at the instant store, and left the instant store on December 31, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Gap 1, 2, 3, 5 evidence, Eul 1-4 (including paper numbers), I's testimony of witness of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In concluding a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant was paid KRW 15 million for the premium on condition that it would be returned at the time of termination of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant promised to sell the building including the instant store to G and return KRW 15 million for the premium to the Plaintiff by October 31, 2018. The Defendant is obligated to return the premium to the Plaintiff in accordance with the agreement on the return of the premium. 2) D sold the facility premium of the instant store to G including the facility of the instant store while receiving KRW 15 million for the instant store, and thereafter received KRW 5 million for the premium to the Plaintiff.

D was paid the facility premium by the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff did not intend to return the facility premium, so the Defendant, a lessor, is liable for damages to the Plaintiff.