The defendant is paid KRW 100,000,000 from the plaintiff.

가. 원고는 2011. 9. 30. 피고에게 별지 (1)목록 기재 건물 중 별지 각 도면 표시 ㉠, ㉡, ㉢, ㉣, ㉤, ㉥, ㉦, ㉧, ㉨, ㉩, ㉠의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 가 부분(다음부터 "이 사건 점포"라고 한다)을 임대차보증금 1억 원, 차임 월 800만 원(부가가치세 별도), 기간 2011. 10. 1.부터 2013. 9. 30.까지로 정하여 임대하되(다음부터 “이 사건 임대차계약”이라고 한다), 임대차보증금 중 5천만 원은 2011. 9. 30.에, 나머지 5천만 원은 2012. 5. 30.까지 지급받기로 하였는데, 위 잔금 5,000만원 중 2,000만원을 2013. 6. 22. 원고에게 송금하였다.

B. The Defendant is running a business after receiving the instant store from the Plaintiff and filing a business report as shown in the business report in the attached Table No. 2.

C. On June 18, 2013, the Plaintiff, via an agent, sent to the Defendant a document stating that “the document stating that “the Defendant does not pay KRW 20 million out of the balance of the lease deposit that the Defendant would pay by May 30, 2012,” but this appears to be an error or clerical error. Since the Plaintiff did not pay any B, the document stating that “the instant lease contract termination notice shall be terminated as of September 30, 2013” was sent by content-certified mail, and the said notice was received on June 20, 2013 by the Defendant Company Dong E. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23868, Jun. 20, 2013>

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 5-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts as to the termination of the contract, it is reasonable to view that the contract of this case was terminated as the expiration of the contract, since the plaintiff, a lessor, clearly expresses that he had no intent to renew the contract before the contract expires.

The defendant is stated in the contract of this case.