The defendant marks 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1 of the attached Form No. 1, among the 144.6 square meters of the building indicated in the attached Table list to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the part (Ga) (Ga) (hereinafter “instant leased price”) (hereinafter “instant leased price”), which connects each point of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1, among the 144.6 square meters of the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff, on January 1, 2004, with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 450,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 450,000,000, and until December 31, 2006 (24 months), and entered into a lease agreement with the term of lease of which expires on January 1, 207.

B. On February 27, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with a deposit of KRW 15 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and the lease term until February 28, 2011. On February 26, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with a deposit of KRW 9 million, monthly rent of KRW 550,000,000, and the lease term until February 28, 2012. On March 27, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with a deposit of KRW 500,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000,000, the lease term of KRW 400,000,000,000, KRW 350,000, KRW 35,506,27,2015.

C. The Defendant, at its original shop, is running a restaurant business of the trade name “D” from May 20, 2013 to the present.

On January 2, 2020, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease agreement upon the expiration of the lease term.

E. At present, the Defendant is running business at the leased shop of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3 (including virtual number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts as to the duty of delivery, the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on the lease price of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant has expired on February 26, 2020, and thus, the defendant has a special relation to the plaintiff.