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.

Basic Facts

A. On May 31, 2010, the Defendant leased Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and 1 floor (hereinafter “instant store”) KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million, and the term of lease from July 15, 2010 to July 14, 2013 to C, and thereafter, C transferred the right of lease to the Plaintiff as to the instant store around October 201.

Accordingly, on October 27, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with regard to the instant store by setting the lease deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million, and the lease term from July 15, 2010 to July 14, 201 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and received delivery of the instant store around that time.

B. The Plaintiff, while operating a daily restaurant with the trade name “E” at the instant store, left the instant store around October 31, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole argument as to the purport of the whole pleadings made by the plaintiff to the defendant around Nov. 2015. The defendant sent a mobile phone text message to the plaintiff on Nov. 26, 2015 and Nov. 29, 2015 that the plaintiff will use the instant store as its principal office. On Jun. 16, 2016, although the plaintiff was appointed as a new tenant through F as real estate broker, the defendant was waiting for the office at the instant store by the defendant's father and the plaintiff's father to the plaintiff on Jun. 16, 2016. Although the plaintiff concluded a contract for the purchase of rights with G and the defendant to become a new tenant and notified the defendant of this fact, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's new tenant's opportunity to answer without any justifiable reason to return the premium to the plaintiff.

As such, the Defendant explicitly expressed to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would not conclude the lease agreement even if the new lessee was arranged.