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

A. On November 27, 2001, the Defendant opened a maintenance business in the building located on the land in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and completed business registration with the trade name “D”.

B. Four persons, including E, etc., who completed registration of ownership preservation on March 8, 2016 of the attached building newly constructed after the said building was removed, completed registration of ownership transfer due to sale on March 31, 2016 to the Plaintiff on December 29, 2015.

C. On September 21, 2016, the Plaintiff respectively set the lease deposit amount of KRW 15,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,000, and the lease term of KRW 4,00,000, and the lease term of the Defendant respectively, as of September 23, 2016 to September 22, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “the lease of this case”) D.

On the other hand, among the above lease contract, the special agreement stating that the lessee shall move immediately upon maturity. If the lessee fails to comply therewith, no objection shall be raised to any act of the lessor. (hereinafter “the special agreement of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant special agreement that limits the Defendant’s right to request renewal of the contract is valid since it exceeds five years if it includes the period of lease from the previous owners of the Defendant, and the Defendant did not lease the above store from the previous owners, and that the entire term of lease does not reach five years. Therefore, the said special agreement is invalid as it limits the lessee’s right to request renewal of the contract.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the whole term of lease exceeds five years upon the expiration of the term of lease of this case, the content itself does not have the effect pursuant to Article 15 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, which recognizes lessee's right to request renewal of contract, contrary to Article 10 (2) of the same Act.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone was before the Defendant entered into the instant lease agreement.