A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiffs leased 66 square meters of a store listed in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) to the defendant on December 18, 2012, by designating the lease deposit as KRW 60,000,000, the lease term until December 31, 2014, and KRW 880,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed pursuant to Article 639 of the Civil Act, and was terminated on November 22, 2015 when six months have elapsed since the date when the Plaintiff notified the termination.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is paid KRW 6 million from the plaintiffs, and at the same time he is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiffs.

B. On this ground, the defendant asserted that the lease contract of this case was renewed in accordance with Article 10(4) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant requested renewal of the contract under Article 10(1) of the above Act, and even if the contract was renewed, the above assertion is without merit since the period of one year expires in accordance with Article 10(4). Meanwhile, the lessee's right to request renewal of the lease can only be exercised within the extent that the whole lease period including the initial lease period does not exceed five years. The defendant's first lease contract of this case was concluded and operated on July 22, 2005, since there is no dispute between the parties, the defendant cannot exercise the right to request renewal under the above Act. Thus, the above argument is groundless. The defendant prepared a lease contract on December 18, 2012.