1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

C On May 30, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on May 30, 2014 with respect to 102 units (hereinafter “instant store”) out of the E-ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) in Tong Young-si (hereinafter “instant building”) by setting the period up to May 30, 2016, and operated the instant store with the name “F” in the name of “F.”

When acquiring “F” from C, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25 million to C for the premium. On August 17, 2014, the date of the instant lease agreement is indicated as August 18, 2014, but the date of concluding the contract seems to be the day preceding the date of concluding the contract.

With respect to the instant store, a lease agreement was concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000 for the instant store, from August 17, 2014 to May 30, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The instant lease agreement included the following special terms and conditions:

Matters of special agreement

1. Once a contract is concluded, an order shall be given to the owner of the building without imposing any legal liability on him/her (in the case of reconstruction);

2. A lessee may not exercise facility costs and premiums to a lessor upon the expiration of the contract.

Upon the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of his intention to order the instant store by the end date, and on April 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for mediation seeking the return of the premium.

(Court 2016s.70) The above conciliation case was implemented as a lawsuit, but it was concluded on November 12, 2016 as the withdrawal of lawsuit.

(2) On the other hand, on May 27, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the name of the instant store (this Court Decision 2016Gadan22539), and in the instant case, the Defendant issued a ruling of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter “decision of recommending reconciliation”) stating that “the Plaintiff in the instant case ordered the Plaintiff to order the instant store by August 17, 2016 to the Defendant in the instant case” (hereinafter “decision of recommending reconciliation”).