1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,941,120 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 27, 2018 to November 8, 2018, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 23, 2013, the Defendant completed each registration of ownership transfer for land C and its ground buildings due to a compulsory sale by official auction.

B. On January 17, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the said building D (hereinafter “instant store”) with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 600,000,000,000 from February 1, 2014 to February 1, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and thereafter, the said lease agreement was renewed and continued until February 1, 2018.

C. On November 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the right to lease of the instant store to E, and on December 8, 2017, the Defendant’s representative F, “a new lessee of the instant store was sought and transferred the right to lease to a new lessee.” Accordingly, F responded to “the Defendant would directly use the instant store if the Plaintiff does not use the instant store.”

On December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff asked F to receive premium from a new lessee on December 22, 2017, stating that the premium was KRW 100 million, and the F was excessive. In order to identify the scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the premium, the Plaintiff came into consideration to identify the scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the premium.

E. Meanwhile, as of December 31, 2017, the appraised value of the instant store as of December 31, 2017, near the date of termination of the instant lease agreement, is KRW 48,235,200.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, Results of the commission of appraisal to corporation G, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the fact that the Plaintiff, a lessee of the instant store, requested the Defendant, a lessor, to enter into a lease agreement by arranging for a new lessee between six months and six months before the termination of the instant lease agreement, even though the Plaintiff, as the lessee of the instant store, without justifiable grounds.