1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On December 4, 2015, the Defendant leased (i) No. 118 of the first floor of the Seoul Jung-gu D market (hereinafter “instant store”) from C to December 3, 2016, respectively, by setting the lease deposit of KRW 22.1 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.1 million, and the lease period of KRW 2 million from December 4, 2015 to December 3, 2016.

On June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased the right to lease of the Defendant’s store from the Defendant for KRW 300 million (hereinafter “the right to lease of this case”).

On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff sub-leaseed the instant store to the Defendant as KRW 50 million, KRW 4 million per month, and the sublease period from June 30, 2016 to August 2016, respectively.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the whole purport of the pleading and the statement in Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleading is based on the lease contract of this case. The Defendant owes the duty of the Plaintiff to allow the Plaintiff to lease the instant store pursuant to the lease contract of this case. ② The obligation to allow the Plaintiff to obtain the lessor’s seal, etc. on the report to the merchant association managing the instant store, etc. to be submitted by the Plaintiff to the

The plaintiff notified the defendant to perform the above obligations because the defendant did not perform the above obligations, but the defendant continued to perform the above obligations, and the plaintiff cancelled the lease contract of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages from June 30, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the following day of the payment of the purchase price for the remainder after deducting KRW 50 million from the remainder of KRW 300 million paid by the Defendant to the Defendant as the purchase price for the lease of this case.

Judgment

The defendant's non-performance of duty to lease the store of this case is asserted as a result of the lease contract of this case.