On March 15, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant to lease real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) without a deposit, with a fixed term of KRW 20 million per annum and the term of lease from March 15, 201 to 24 months.

On March 15, 2016, when the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, stating that the instant lease agreement is KRW 22 million on a yearly basis, and the term of the lease was from March 15, 2016 to March 15, 2017.

From March 15, 2011 to March 15, 2011, the Defendant operates a mutually named “D” restaurant in the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a branch number if there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the entire purport of the pleading, and the facts of the above recognition as to the ground for claim for judgment as to the request for the issuance of the building of this case, the lease contract of this case was terminated on March 15, 2017, and thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff as restitution.

The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant exercised the right to request renewal of the contract regarding the Defendant’s assertion was concluded between E and the Defendant, not the Plaintiff, and the lease contract concluded on March 15, 2016 was concluded between E and the Defendant.

Therefore, the five-year period during which the right to request the renewal of a contract may be exercised under Article 10(2) of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15791, Oct. 16, 2018) shall be calculated from March 15, 2016. The Defendant requested the renewal of the contract lawfully between six months and one month before the expiration of the lease term. The Plaintiff did not have any justifiable reason to refuse the request, and the lease contract of this case was not terminated.

related.