A. On December 3, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit of KRW 55 million from December 11, 2013 to December 11, 2015, which leases the Seo-gu Seo-gu Btel 1318 (hereinafter “instant building”).

The Plaintiff used the instant building as an employee’s accommodation.

B. On January 22, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate stating that “Notice of Termination of the Lease Agreement” was “Notice of Termination of the Lease Agreement at the same time when real estate was delivered on December 15, 2015,” and that “the return of the deposit was notified in writing on January 11, 2016, and that the return of the deposit was urged on January 22, 2016 to immediately return the deposit for lease.” (c) The Plaintiff sent to the Defendant on April 26, 2016, as the Plaintiff notified of the termination of the Lease Agreement on January 22, 2016, the Plaintiff sent the certificate that “The Plaintiff returned KRW 50 million by April 30, 2016.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, whole purport of pleading

2. Assertion and determination

A. (1) The Housing Lease Protection Act or the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act is not applicable to the lease agreement relationship, as the Plaintiff, a corporate, leased the instant building for the purpose of residence of employees, and the Civil Act applies to such lease agreement.

According to the provisions of the Civil Code, if a lessee continues to use or take profits from the leased object after the expiration of the lease term, he/she shall be deemed to have leased the object under the same conditions as the former one unless the lessor raises an objection within a reasonable period, but the parties may notify at any time the termination of the

(See Articles 639(1) and 635(1). Accordingly, the lessee of a building has notified the lessor of the termination.