1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. On August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C to take over the right of lease between C, etc. with H, etc. on a premium of 6 million won (hereinafter “instant acquisition contract”). The Defendant and I are licensed real estate agents who arranged the contract. The Plaintiff and C are licensed real estate agents who arranged the contract.

Among the special terms and conditions of the acquisition agreement of this case, the following are stated:

The contract under the current status of the special agreement, and the transferee is a conditional contract with the deposit of 7 million won and 350 million won ( separate map) in the monthly deposit of 7 million won and the copy of the register is confirmed, and if the contract is not satisfied, the contract shall be terminated.

On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with H and J, the owner of the instant coffee store, setting the lease deposit of KRW 7 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.5 million, and the lease period from September 1, 2013 to September 1, 2015.

Article 20 (Special Provisions) (1) This contract is to take over and succeed to the store of an existing lessee, and legal matters concerning the durable structure established inside the commercial building shall be liable for the lessee, and the lessee shall also be liable for the restoration after the contract is terminated.

Article 20 of the lease contract of this case is stipulated as follows.

On April 14, 2014, in the course of the Plaintiff’s operation of the coffee store of this case, the Japan-dong Office cracks on the effect that the mold structure of the coffee store of this case ought to be restored to its original state as an illegal facility, and on April 28, 2014, the Japan-dong head ordered the instant coffee store to restore its sub-story structure to its original state until May 28, 2014, and notified the Plaintiff of the charge for compelling the performance of KRW 15,194,000 on July 2, 2014, which was not restored to its original state.

【Ground for Recognition: Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (if any, including paper numbers)

2. The plaintiff's assertion.