2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff and Ga.

A. On June 20, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the instant building owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 30 million, KRW 2.5 million per month (payment on the post payment on the 30th of each month), the contract term from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and the Defendant was handed over the instant building on or around March 1, 2013.

B. The instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed until February 28, 2019. On January 10, 2019, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a proof that the Plaintiff had no intention to extend the contract upon the expiration of the lease term for the instant building on February 28, 2019. The content certification reached the Defendant on January 17, 2019.

C. The defendant occupies the building of this case until the date of closing the argument of this case and uses and benefits therefrom as the existing usage.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserts that, as a result of the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant ought to implement the procedure for reporting the closure of business registration of the Defendant, whose place of business is the building of this case, as the restoration to its original state following the termination of

The purpose of this study is to identify the taxpayer and to secure the taxation data, and it is merely a report of business fact by submitting a business registration application to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the business, and the issuance of the business registration certificate is merely an act of issuing a certificate verifying such registration, and it does not affect the status of the business. <2> According to Article 8 (8) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 168 (3) of the Income Tax Act which applies mutatis mutandis.