1. The appeal against the plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant) and the main claim extended by the court of the first instance shall be dismissed, respectively.

2...

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 13, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the broker of Defendant C, setting the deposit amount of KRW 80,00,700,000 (including value added tax, and the payment on the 15th day of each month), management expenses of KRW 330,000 (including value added tax), and period of November 30, 2018 to November 29, 2011, under which the Plaintiff leased the 11.04 square meters of the 2nd floor among the 5th floor located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 80,000,000 as lease deposit to Defendant B, and received delivery of the instant building, and thereafter used the entire instant building (from the first floor to the third floor) for restaurant purposes.

(c)

On April 16, 2019, the Plaintiff was subject to a corrective order issued on May 3, 2019 by the Mapo-gu Office to regulate the violation of the Food Sanitation Act (the act on the first floor, other than the place of business). On May 23, 2020, the Plaintiff returned the instant building to the Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, and the result of a factual inquiry into the head of the Mapo-gu Office of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. Defendant B, including the first floor at the time of the instant lease agreement, has no problem in using the entire building of this case as a restaurant business place. As such, Defendant B, as well as the first floor at the time of the instant lease agreement, is obligated to allow the Plaintiff to operate as a restaurant.

In fact, the first floor of the building of this case was not in use as a legitimate place of business. Therefore, Defendant B is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the nonperformance of the above obligation.

B) The Plaintiff is running almost in the first floor of the instant building due to Defendant B’s nonperformance of its obligations.