1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and its amount shall be 15% per annum from October 16, 2018 to May 31, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the first floor (hereinafter “instant store”) among the D-owned buildings in Nam-gu, Busan, as the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000 (payment on July of each month), and 12 months from the date of delivery of the lease term of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and operated the instant mobile phone store from around that time.

Since then, the instant lease contract was implicitly renewed every year.

B. On July 13, 2018, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail stating that “The instant store is delivered without the intention to renew the contract after October 7, 2018, the expiration date of the contract.”

C. Accordingly, on August 29, 2018, the Plaintiff requested a new lessee to enter into a lease agreement to the Defendant on behalf of August 29, 2018, but the Defendant rejected it. On September 16, 2018, the Plaintiff went to the Defendant to move to the new lessee again, but the Defendant refused to go to the Defendant itself.

The appraised value of the premium on the instant store is KRW 30,00,000,000, based on October 1, 2018.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Records of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Results of the court’s commission of appraisal to appraiser E; purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the defendant refused to enter into a lease agreement with a person who intends to become a new lessee arranged by the plaintiff without justifiable grounds, barring any special circumstances, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages incurred to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 10-4 (3) and (1) 4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”).

B. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion: (i) the Plaintiff did not pay for at least three vehicles regarding the instant lease agreement (Article 10(1)1); and (ii) the Plaintiff’s damage to the front glass of the instant store and restores it to the original glass, and then the existing glass is arbitrarily lost.