2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

가. 이 사건 임대차계약 체결 피고는 2016. 2. 20. D과 D 소유의 별지 목록 기재 건물(이하 ‘이 사건 건물’이라 한다) 1층 중 별지 도면 표시 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ㈎, ㈏ 부분 39.6㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 임차목적물’이라 한다)에 관하여 보증금 1,000만 원, 차임 월 55만 원, 기간 2018. 3. 9.까지로 하는 임대차계약을 체결하고, 그 무렵부터 위 임차목적물에서 ‘E’라는 상호로 카페를 운영하여 왔다.

B. The Plaintiffs, as the form of ownership transfer restriction on the instant building, completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 12, 2018, for each of the instant 1/2 shares of each of the instant buildings from D on July 10, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant lease agreement was extended by March 9, 2019 due to implied renewal, but the Plaintiffs expressed their intent not to renew the agreement to the Defendant on January 29, 2019, and the Defendant did not require the Plaintiffs to renew the contract within one month from six months after the expiry of the lease agreement. As such, the instant lease agreement was terminated at the expiration of the term.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the leased object of this case to the Plaintiffs and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from March 10, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the leased object.

Even if the Defendant demanded the renewal of the contract to the Plaintiff A, the validity of the renewal of the contract is not recognized only by the demand for renewal to one of the lessors.

Furthermore, even if the Defendant demanded the Plaintiffs to lawfully renew the contract, the Plaintiffs are preparing for reconstruction of the building of this case, and thus, Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.