1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 14, 2010, the Plaintiff, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant, leased the land of 243.36 square meters for the first floor neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) among the real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant, as the contract term, from September 30, 2010 to September 29, 2015, the deposit amount of 50 million won, and the rent of 1.2 million won for each month (payment on September 30, 201, and subsequent payment).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff operated a private teaching institute with the trade name “D” in the instant commercial building during the term of lease.

B. On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a premium contract with EAF (hereinafter “EA”) with the content that the entirety, etc. of the instant shopping district’s private teaching institute facilities and the establishment thereof is taken over to 70 million won (hereinafter “the instant premium contract”).

(C) On September 3, 2015, the Defendant issued a certificate of content that “the Plaintiff would be a new lessee and thus, approved the premium contract.” Meanwhile, on September 9, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that “the premium would not be recognized as it was terminated due to the termination of the lease contract for more than three months.” D. Defendant A operates a private teaching institute with the trade name “F” from the expiration of the lease contract for this case after the termination of the lease contract for this case. E. As of September 30, 2015, the appraiser appraised the instant commercial building premium for this case as of September 30, 2015 as 36 million won (type 6 million won, intangible property, intangible property 30 million won). [In the absence of grounds for recognition, the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal of the appraiser’s evidence, evidence Nos. 1, 5, 14, and 14, and evidence No. G.

2. Summary of parties' arguments;

A. The Defendant refused to conclude a lease contract with a new lessee arranged by the Plaintiff and obstructed the collection of the Plaintiff’s premium. Therefore, the premium is to be paid by the new lessee pursuant to Article 10-4(3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”).