1. The part concerning the claim for reinstatement among the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant shall indicate "real estate" attached to the plaintiff.
1. Of the instant lawsuits, the purport of the claim in a civil suit regarding the part of the claim for restitution should be specified in detail so that the content and scope of the claim can be clearly identified in the complaint for the subject matter of the lawsuit and the specification of the trial scope of the court.
A lawsuit for which the purport of a claim is not clearly specified shall not be exempted from dismissal because it is unlawful, and the court shall ex officio examine whether the purport of the claim is specified.
In the lawsuit of this case, the part claiming restitution of commercial partition walls, etc. is unlawful since the entries of the purport of the claim alone are not enough to clearly confirm the specific contents, such as the meaning, point or condition of reinstatement, and the structure and area of the object seeking restitution.
2. Determination as to remaining claims (determination as to requests for delivery of a building);
A. On January 18, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the instant building by designating deposit of KRW 20 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 700,000; (c) from February 25, 2010 to October 24, 201; (d) the Plaintiff failed to notify the Defendant of the refusal of renewal between six months and one month before the expiration date of the lease agreement; (b) the Defendant continued to use and benefit from the instant building; and (c) the Plaintiff, among the Plaintiff and the Defendant where the lease agreement on the instant building was explicitly renewed several occasions; (d) the Plaintiff did not provide the Defendant with proof that the lease agreement would be renewed upon expiration of October 24, 2015; or (e) the Plaintiff did not provide the Defendant with evidence to the effect that the agreement would be renewed on October 24, 2015; or (e) the Plaintiff sent the entire pleadings to the Defendant on August 16, 2015.
According to the above facts, the lease contract for the building of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant on October 24, 201, which is the date when the original contract expires.