A. On January 2008, the Plaintiff leased part of the fourth floor of the E-building located in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, from Non-Co., Ltd., and operated Ptecot from October 2008.

On October 14, 2008, the Plaintiff leased to F the store listed in paragraph (1) of the order (hereinafter “instant store”) among the order of the 4th floor of the building E to F. The lease deposit was set at KRW 200 million, monthly rent was set at KRW 20 million, the lease deposit was set at KRW 20 million, the lease term was set at KRW 20 million, from October 14, 2008, and the store name was changed to H. The store name was changed to “H”.

(B) On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the store in this case to Defendant B, and the Plaintiff set the lease deposit amount of KRW 300 million, monthly rent of KRW 20 million, from October 14, 2013 to October 13, 2015, and the store name of KRW H (hereinafter “second lease”).

The Plaintiff refused to renew the contract and sent to the Defendants a content-certified mail to the effect that the Plaintiff refused to renew the second lease contract on July 30, 2015, September 2, 2015, and twice, and notified the Defendants to deliver the instant store by the end of the contract term of the second lease.

On September 4, 2015, the Defendants received this and sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail to the effect that they exercise the right to request renewal of the contract under Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, which reaches the Plaintiff at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the fact of recognition of the claim against Defendant B, since the second lease contract expired due to the expiration of the contract period, Defendant B, the lessee, is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, the lessor, barring special circumstances.

B. The store of this case, which recognized the claim 1 against Defendant C, began to invest the required funds by Defendant C, but its first instance.