A. On January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for the lease deposit amounting to KRW 5,00,00,000, monthly rent, and the lease period from February 1, 2015 to October 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) on the part (A) size of 95.2 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant store”) which successively connected each other among the buildings owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendant leased the said store with the trade name “B” at the said store.

B. On June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff: “The instant store is scheduled to be sold to another person; it is anticipated to be reconstructed due to the fear of safety accidents due to aging; and thus, planned to terminate the instant lease contract on October 31, 2015, which is the expiration date of the contract; “a certificate of content was sent; and thereafter, a certificate of content was sent to the Plaintiff on October 20, 2016; and each content certificate reached the Plaintiff around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into the instant lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant store. The instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant on June 1, 2016 and October 20, 2016 that the instant lease agreement would be terminated as of October 31, 2016, and the Defendant had no legitimate demand for the renewal of the contract during that period. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff. Even if the Defendant’s demand for the renewal of the contract is valid, the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff on the justifiable ground of the refusal of the contract renewal under Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.