1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 19, 2017 to July 18, 2018, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 14, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, the owner of the building on the ground C in Gangdong-gu Seoul, and the first floor and the first underground floor of the building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) (hereinafter “instant lease”). The Plaintiff agreed to deposit KRW 130,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,800,000, and the term of lease from May 15, 2012 to May 15, 2014. The Plaintiff engaged in livestock-food business in the instant commercial building with the trade name “D”.

B. The instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed on May 15, 2014, and the Defendant expressed to the Plaintiff the intent to refuse to renew the lease agreement on December 10, 2015, and requested the Plaintiff to deliver the instant commercial building, but the lease term was extended by May 15, 2017 upon the Plaintiff’s request for renewal.

C. On December 20, 2016, if the Plaintiff did not want the renewal of the instant lease agreement to the Defendant, the Plaintiff would arrange for a new lessee to recover the premium, so that the Plaintiff would be informed of the deposit and rent. However, on the 30th of the same month, the Defendant demanded not to notify the Plaintiff of the deposit and rent that the Plaintiff wants to renew the instant lease agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff did not want to transfer the instant commercial building.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,00,000 for the premium when leasing the instant commercial building. At the present price of the premium around the instant commercial building, the premium was KRW 25,000,000 from KRW 25,000 to KRW 40,000,000, and the terms and conditions of the lease desired to the Defendant to recover the premium were demanded to be informed to the Defendant. However, the Defendant interfered with the Plaintiff’s opportunity to recover the premium by clearly stating that the Plaintiff did not wish to renew the instant lease and failing to provide the terms and conditions of the lease, thereby preventing the Plaintiff from being arranged

Therefore, the defendant's damages equivalent to the premium paid to the plaintiff amounting to 25,000,000 won and this.