1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff who falls under any of the following subparagraphs against the plaintiff.

In the first instance court within the scope of the judgment of this court, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for damages of KRW 150,000,000 due to the act of obstructing the receipt of the premium on the store of this case, and the Defendant filed a claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent on the delivery of the store of this case and the above store as a counterclaim, and the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s principal claim and accepted the Defendant’s counterclaim claim.

Therefore, since the plaintiff appealed to the entire judgment of the court of first instance, but this court has changed to seek only cancellation of the part concerning the claim of main lawsuit, only the part concerning the claim of main lawsuit in the judgment of first instance shall be included in the scope of the judgment of this court.

Basic Facts

On May 18, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant that “the Plaintiff shall lease the instant store from the Defendant during the lease period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014, as KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000 (value-added tax separate: Provided, That from May 2012 to December 2012, hereinafter “the lease”).” (hereinafter “the lease”), the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,00,000 to the Defendant. Around that time, the Plaintiff received the said store from the Defendant and operated the “C point of mutual convenience” at the said store.

On May 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant increased the monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000 as the monthly rent of the above lease, and the above lease was renewed on December 31, 2014, which is the expiration date of the lease term.

On December 2, 2016, the Plaintiff requested an extension of the lease term under the condition that the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife increase the lease deposit in KRW 50,000,000. However, the Defendant refused the Plaintiff’s demand for extension of the lease term with the Defendant’s intent to lease the instant store to the Defendant’s relative.

(A) On May 19, 2017, the Defendant returned KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

Even after this, the Plaintiff.