The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) with KRW 4,643,00.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the owner of five-story neighborhood living facilities located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and on March 31, 2008, leased one of the five-story neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) with a deposit of KRW 30,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1800,000, and the deadline of KRW 24 months to the Plaintiff.

B. As the above lease has been renewed between the original and the Defendant, the Defendant had been operating the marina in the instant building. The Defendant, around 2014, changed the type of business to “D” into “D,” and the lease was renewed at KRW 2.5 million on March 19, 2014, by setting the monthly rent as KRW 2.5 million. Around March 19, 2016, the type of business was changed to “E” as “E,” and the lease was renewed by setting the monthly rent as KRW 3.5 million on March 19, 2016.

After that, the Defendant finally decided to extend the lease term from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019, and the lease contract was renewed by setting the monthly rent of KRW 4 million (Additional Tax No. 500,000).

(hereinafter referred to as "the lease of this case" in total.

From the end of 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff did not wish to renew the lease of this case after the lease term expires.

Meanwhile, as of December 10, 2018 between the Plaintiff and F, a contract for acquisition and transfer of rights was made between the Plaintiff and F, and this is written that EF will accept KRW 200 million for the premium, and the remainder KRW 196 million shall be paid in cash on the same day, and the remainder of KRW 196 million shall be paid in January 15, 2019, and the special agreement is written that “the rights agreement is written” means that the contract shall be terminated without both parties’ penalty if the contract for the lease between the owner of the building and the commercial building is not sexually created due to the refusal of the building owner.

(hereinafter referred to as “the premium contract of this case”).

From January 18, 2019, the defendant requested the plaintiff to provide information necessary for the new lease contract, and the plaintiff respondeded to this and discussed.