2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, since the instant lease contract was terminated upon the expiration of the term.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant can recognize the fact that the plaintiff requested the renewal of the contract on or around August 5, 2015.

Inasmuch as the instant lease agreement was renewed under the same condition (after that, one year is renewed at the Defendant’s request for renewal), the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

The defendant's defense pointing this out is well-grounded.

Although the plaintiff asserts to the effect that the renewal of the contract can be refused for reconstruction, it is not sufficient to recognize that the rebuilding of the plaintiff's assertion constitutes a reconstruction stipulated as a ground for refusal of renewal under Article 10 (1) 7 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case was concluded by promising the defendant to deliver it after the lapse of one year, and that it is a violation of the good faith principle to require the renewal of the contract.

In addition, the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act protects the lessee's right to request renewal of the contract as a mandatory provision in Article 3 of the lease contract (Evidence A 2). Therefore, the defendant can still demand renewal of the contract.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C. The Plaintiff knew that the right to request renewal of the contract can be recognized to the Defendant, but did not conclude the lease contract, which was erroneous and entered into the instant lease contract.

Since the lease contract term is an important part of legal act.