1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with respect to part of 184 square meters of the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1 shopping mall (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”). From that time, around that time, the Plaintiff had been operating a dental specialty store in the instant shopping mall. On September 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease renewal agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with respect to the instant shopping mall, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million, KRW 7 million per month, and the lease period as from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On August 12, 201, the time when the Plaintiff entered into the first lease contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million as premium to E who operated a cosmetic store in the instant commercial building from around 2000.

C. On August 3, 2015, before the expiration of the lease term of the instant contract, the Plaintiff drafted a written agreement with H, which is the husband of the Defendant and the Defendant, (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The instant written agreement contains the following details.

(1) Business operations shall be conducted up to 8/31, and restoration to original state shall be promptly restored from 9/1 to the maximum extent possible.

(2) KRW 100,000 for premiums shall be paid directly to tenants after the vehicle to the President of the D Point (Plaintiff).

On March 25, 2017, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with F on April 25, 2017, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million per month, KRW 6 million per month, and the lease term from April 7, 2017 to April 6, 2019 without premium.

E. Meanwhile, the instant commercial building was in a public room from September 1, 2015 to March 25, 2017 when the Defendant entered into a new lease agreement with F.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion transferred KRW 100 million to E’s account at the request of the Defendant at the time of entering into the initial lease agreement. At the time, the Plaintiff did not have any contact with E and did not have any facilities or businesses of the instant commercial building. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not take over the instant commercial building.