1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The facts below the basic facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding together the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 6, 20, Eul evidence 1, 4, 5, 6, and evidence 10 evidence 1.

The Defendant is a stock company with the purpose of real estate leasing business, and is the owner of the building indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”).

The defendant and the plaintiff agree as follows.

First, the lease contract of each of the stores of this case is the relationship that the defendant's demand dies, and the contract is concluded for the year 200 by adjusting the lease price to the lower rate of 40 to 60% of the lease price in 1999, and is adjusted to the lower rate of 5% for the next five years.

Second, the defendant's unilaterally does not raise an explanation for the business (business indicated in the standing) managed by the plaintiff.

If the defendant, who violated this Agreement, unilaterally sells a lawsuit and building against his intention, the defendant pays to the plaintiff an amount equivalent to the city price of his name.

Provided, That the foregoing shall not apply to a master city following the redevelopment of the city by the State and the competent authorities.

In principle, after redevelopment projects, the plaintiff shall be leased preferentially.

Third, the current rent for the first floor and the first underground floor is recommended to be adjusted downward by the defendant's child when the contract is renewed in 2000.

Fourth, the defendant shall cooperate to the maximum extent possible when the plaintiff works to change the whole building due to the internal construction (pre-consultation).

The Plaintiff, while leasing and using the first floor and the second floor of the instant building from the Defendant, agreed to additionally lease the second floor of the instant building No. 204-5 (hereinafter “the second floor store of this case”) and the third floor No. 303-5 (hereinafter “the third floor store of this case”) from the Defendant around December 31, 199, the Plaintiff agreed to additionally lease the second floor of this case’s building No. 204-5 (hereinafter “the second floor store of this case”) and the third floor No. 303-5 (hereinafter “the third floor store of this case’s 2 and the third floor store of this case”) with the Defendant on December 31, 199.