The defendant.

A. On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) leased a deposit of 247.93 square meters among the 397.3 square meters in an agricultural warehouse of the first floor of a single-story warehouse in the Dong-gu Seoul District District Office (hereinafter “instant building”); and (b) from December 5, 2013 to December 5, 2014, the term of lease was fixed as KRW 10,000,000 for monthly rent; (c) from December 5, 2013 to December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a deposit to the Defendant on December 6, 2013. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24874, Dec. 6, 2013>

B. On February 7, 2014, the Defendant sold the instant building to D, and on March 21, 2014, registered the ownership transfer in D. D sold the instant building to E and F on September 10, 2015, and on November 5, 2015, registered the ownership transfer of each half of the instant building.

(c)

Even after the expiration of the lease term of this case, the Plaintiff continued to use and benefit from the leased object of this case and requested E to deliver it around February 10, 2019, and delivered it to E on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole of the arguments

2. Determination

A. As for the cause of a claim, a lease is established when one of the parties agrees to allow the other party to use and benefit from the object and the latter agrees to pay a rent for it, the lessor is not required to establish ownership and other rights to lease the object. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the lessor has a direct effect on the lease solely on the fact that the lessor lost the ownership of the leased object during the duration of existence after the lease was concluded. However, if the lessor transferred the ownership of the leased object to a third party and the third party who acquired the ownership demands the lessee to deliver the leased object and then transfers it, the lessor is not obligated to have the lessee use and benefit from the leased object.