A. On April 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to a store of 20.83 square meters as indicated in paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “instant store”) and set the deposit amount of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 450,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 450,000, and the lease period of KRW 1 year from April 30, 2013.

B. The instant contract was implicitly renewed on April 30, 2014, and the Plaintiff refused to renew the instant contract on April 1, 2015, and demanded the delivery of the instant store by April 29, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition that the delivery obligation has arisen, since the contract of this case terminated at the expiration of the lease term, the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s argument as to the Defendant’s assertion argues to the effect that: (a) the Defendant operated the instant store for more than ten (10) years; (b) the Defendant’s payment of the premium for KRW 30 million and the facility investment amount for KRW 20 million, without any compensation, delivery of the instant store to the Plaintiff without any compensation.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant is responsible for returning premiums or facility investments paid by the defendant in relation to the store of this case only with the statement of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.