The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff leased from Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D’s fourth-story neighborhood living facilities and housing (hereinafter “instant building”) the lease deposit of KRW 10 million E-3 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) and KRW 10 million per month in rent, and the term of lease from February 19, 2014 to October 13, 2015.

Since then, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant, and registered the business on February 28, 2014, and operated a real estate brokerage business (mutual “F”) at the instant store.

B. On April 11, 2015, the Plaintiff, in the name of G, drafted a lease contract with respect to the instant store in the name of G, setting the lease contract from April 16, 2015 to October 16, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”), and G registered as business operator on April 23, 2015, and operated a real estate brokerage business at the instant store.

C. The instant lease agreement was later renewed, and the Defendant purchased the instant building from the above C and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 24, 2015.

G on October 18, 2016, between the Defendant and the Defendant, concluded a lease renewal contract with the term of KRW 10 million for the instant store, KRW 1.5 million per month, and the term of lease from October 15, 2016 to April 14, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant lease renewal contract”). (e)

On the other hand, on December 4, 2015, the Seocho-gu Office issued an order to correct a violation of the Building Act to the Defendant. On December 7, 2015, the instant building was registered in the building ledger as a violation building due to substantial repairs (the increase in the number of households due to removal and extension of the second floor house bearing wall) without permission. On April 22, 2017, the Plaintiff removed from the instant store on or around April 22, 2017, and on May 26, 2017, it was impossible to operate the real estate office because it did not restore the illegally constructed part to the Defendant.