(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

(b) from September 14, 2015, entry in the separate sheet.

A. On April 25, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the building listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) shall be leased KRW 50 million, monthly rent KRW 2 million, and the lease term shall be from January 14, 2007 to January 14, 2009 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Around that time, the Plaintiff transferred the instant commercial building to the Defendant.

B. After that, while the instant lease contract was implicitly renewed, the Plaintiff sent a certificate to the effect that the instant lease contract is terminated on February 27, 2015, and the said certificate was served on the Defendant on March 2, 2015.

C. After that, the Defendant: (a) occupied and operated the instant commercial building without delay in rent; (b) paid KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff on August 25, 2015; and (c) paid the Plaintiff the rent up to September 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Article 639(1) of the Civil Act provides, “If a lessee continues to use the leased object after the term of lease expires and a lessor fails to raise any objection within a reasonable period, the lessor shall be deemed to have leased the object under the same conditions as the former one. However, the parties may give notice of termination pursuant to the provisions of Article 635.” Article 635(2) of the Civil Act provides, “Where the lessor has given notice of termination in a lease on a building, the termination shall take effect after the lapse of six months from the date on which the other party has been notified of the termination of the contract.”

On March 2, 2015, the fact that the lease contract of this case concerning the commercial building of this case was implicitly renewed after the expiration of the lease term, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s content certificate stating the intention to terminate the lease contract of this case was delivered to the Defendant on March 2, 2015 is recognized in the above Paragraph 1.