A. On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that he/she set the lease deposit amount of KRW 52 million for the lease deposit (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to E (hereinafter “instant building”) among E (hereinafter “instant building”) of the 7th floor of the Gyeonggi-si Building C, Gyeonggi-do, from July 7, 2017 to July 7, 2019, and paid the said lease deposit to the Defendant around that time.

B. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement through F one month prior to the expiration of the above lease term, and delivered the instant building on July 7, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the lease term, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 52 million won the above lease deposit and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from July 8, 2019 to November 30, 2019, when the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the defendant from July 8, 2019, the day following the expiration date of the lease term to November 30, 2019, and 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings

B. As to this, the Defendant did not notify the Defendant of the rejection of renewal one month prior to the expiration of the term of lease, and argued to the effect that the Plaintiff continued to possess and use the building of this case under the condition that the lease of this case was implicitly renewed, and did not notify the Defendant of the termination of the contract. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the rejection of renewal through F one month prior to the expiration of the term of lease, and the delivery of the building of this case on July 7, 2019 is the same as seen earlier. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.