A. On April 21, 201, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) a lease deposit of KRW 25,00,000,000, monthly rent, KRW 1,300,000, and the lease term from May 10, 201 to May 9, 2013, with the Defendant as indicated in the attached Table Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 129.44 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The instant lease contract was renewed several times, and the Plaintiff did not intend to renew the contract as the lease term expires on February 29, 2016 to the Defendant on May 9, 2016.

The notice was sent to the defendant at that time, and the notice was delivered to the defendant.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, the instant lease was terminated on May 9, 2016, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

3. Determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot comply with the plaintiff's request for extradition until he is paid KRW 32,00,000, which was input to the real estate of this case.

In light of the above, if the lessee agreed to return the leased object to the lessor with all of the expenses to be borne by the lessee, it can be deemed a special agreement that the lessee would waive in advance the right to demand reimbursement of all kinds of beneficial expenses incurred on the leased object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da20389, Sept. 30, 1994; 94Da20396, Sept. 30, 1994). Article 626 of the Civil Act on the right to demand reimbursement of expenses is not a mandatory provision, so it is possible to waive or limit such special agreement by a special agreement between the parties. The existence of such special

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da44705, 44712 delivered on August 20, 1996). According to the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are as follows.