A. Each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 among the land size of 596 square meters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gangwon-do.

A. On January 17, 2013, the Plaintiff issued an order to the Defendant.

The part of the port entry (A) is 32.84 square meters and above ground facilities (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant detailed facilities”) as the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,00,000, KRW 350,000 per month (payment of KRW 400,000 from six months to the last day of each month), and the lease term of KRW 21,200 per month from January 21, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease contract”). The Defendant received delivery of the instant detailed facilities from around that time, and is engaged in the business of the said Deputy General up to now with the Defendant’s goods.

B. On the other hand, around November 27, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate that contains an indication of intent to refuse the renewal of the above lease agreement and served on the Defendant around that time.

(Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the plaintiff's cause of action, the lease contract of this case was terminated on January 21, 2015 due to the expiration of the period of validity. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the third secretary general of this case to the plaintiff, and take the defendant's goods in the third secretary general of this case, and the defendant is conducting the third secretary general of this case from March 31, 2015 to the day the delivery of the third secretary general of this case is completed. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of 40,000 won per month from March 31, 2015 to the day the delivery of the third secretary general of this case is completed.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and its determination (1) pursuant to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the Defendant has the right to demand renewal of the instant lease agreement by up to five years, and the Plaintiff committed verbal extension of the lease agreement with the Defendant around July 2014, as the Plaintiff promised to extend the lease agreement by making oral efforts to the Defendant around July 2014. Thus, the said lease agreement is not terminated.

(2) Determination.