1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. In the first floor of the real estate in the annexed list of 500 square meters, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff is ordered to the defendant since 1978.

During the lease of the part at the port (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”), the fact that the lease term from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 entered into a re-lease agreement with the amount of KRW 610,000 per month (hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease agreement”), the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed on January 1, 2018, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she had no intent to renew the instant lease agreement on November 6, 2018, and it is recognized that it reached the Defendant around that time.

According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated on December 31, 2018, the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiff, and pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 610,000 per month from January 26, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the store of this case from January 26, 2019 to the expiration date of delivery of this case.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to hold office at the same level as that of other stores in the same commercial building, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.