1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 1, 201, the Defendant and Nonparty C concluded a lease agreement with respect to the first floor of the D Building in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”), KRW 30 million, KRW 50,600, KRW 506,000 (including value-added tax) monthly management expenses, KRW 2,349,000 (including value-added tax) monthly management expenses, and KRW 2,583,90,000 (including value-added tax) from July 1, 201 to June 30, 201. Since the lease agreement was concluded between July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012, C has been renewed without the lease deposit or rent increase, and from this point, C has operated a mutually restaurant with “E”.

B. C did not pay the monthly rent of the instant building from August 2015, the Defendant sent a notice of termination of the lease agreement on November 12, 2015 and a notice of termination of the lease agreement on December 2, 2015 by each mail, and thereafter, filed a lawsuit seeking the delivery of the instant building and the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in arrears and the rent in arrears with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da53986, supra, and received a favorable judgment on February 25, 2016.

C. On January 8, 2016, C concluded a lease agreement with Nonparty F on the acquisition or transfer of the right (facilities) to KRW 270 million with respect to the instant building. On March 8, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with F, G, and the instant building with KRW 130 million as to the lease deposit, KRW 6390,000 as to the lease deposit, KRW 6390,000 as to the rent, and KRW 2610,000 as management fee.

C The deceased on January 18, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and the deceased’s heir are children and Nonparty H.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including numbers, but hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that C had no opportunity to recover the premium by raising the security deposit in order to not conclude a lease contract with a new lessee arranged by C as a new lessee.

This is less than the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.