1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. The facts below the basis of facts are either in dispute between the parties or acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4.

A. On September 22, 2009, the Defendant, jointly with C and D, completed the registration of ownership transfer due to auction for the sale of the building E in Kimhae-si, 701, 702, 703 and 704 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

B. On April 19, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant on the term of lease on the instant building up to April 19, 2012, and monthly rent up to 2.3 million won, and operated singing points on the instant building.

C. On June 1, 2011, the Defendant cut off all of the instant building on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay rent and management fee. On November 11, 2011, the Defendant executed an order for delivery of real estate and received delivery of the instant building.

On June 9, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Busan Police Station to the effect that “the Defendant interfered with the exercise of rights by blocking electricity without prior notice,” and on January 6, 2012, the Changwon District Court (Seoul High Court Decision 201Da2186) found the Defendant guilty of the crime of interference with business and sentenced the suspension of sentence.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) unilaterally cut off all of the instant building and interfered with the Plaintiff’s business for 5 months from June 1, 201 to November 11, 201, which was the date of delivery execution, and the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 80,000,000,000 for business losses during the said period. (2) Since the Defendant’s Defendant’s termination of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff, all of the Plaintiff’s claim in this case did not constitute an unlawful measure, the Plaintiff’s right to claim in this case expired three years after the date the Defendant became aware of the damages and the perpetrator’s identity.

B. The injured party or his legal representative must be aware of the damage and the perpetrator.