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

A. As to the instant commercial building owned by the Plaintiff, the following lease agreements were concluded.

On November 10, 2009, KRW 1.9 million from November 18, 2009 to November 17, 2011, KRW 1.9 million on November 18, 201, Defendant 18, 201, from November 17, 201 to November 18, 201, KRW 2.5 million on November 18, 201, KRW 205 million on November 18, 201, respectively. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23328, Nov. 17, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 23577, Nov. 3, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 24457, Nov. 17, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 25057, Nov. 3, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 25075, Nov. 2, 205.

B. As of the closing date of the argument of this case, the Defendant is running sales business, such as handphones, in the commercial building of this case.

C. 1) On August 6, 2014 and October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the lease contract for the instant commercial building was terminated on November 17, 2014, and that it would not be renewed. 2) As to this, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on September 5, 2014, for whom five years have not elapsed since the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act was guaranteed, the said lease contract was required to be renewed.

C is a parent of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion 1) The Defendant concluded the instant commercial building lease agreement with C on November 10, 2009, and paid rent, etc. directly to the Plaintiff from November 18, 2009 to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the lease of the instant commercial building was terminated on November 17, 2014, five years after the Defendant guaranteed the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act from November 18, 2009. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff on November 10, 2009. (2) The Defendant was merely concluding the lease agreement with C, the Defendant’s father, and the Defendant newly leased the instant commercial building from the Plaintiff on November 18, 2011.

(hereinafter “instant secondary lease”). Therefore, the Defendant’s lease of the instant commercial building is in accordance with the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.