1. The defendant shall receive KRW 10 million from the plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, 108 square meters per each floor of the building listed in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) From April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2015, the Defendant is a person operating a restaurant by leasing the instant building from the Plaintiff KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 700,000 (hereinafter “instant lease”).

B. (1) The lease period of this case was extended by March 31, 2019 by the end of the lease period, since both parties did not give notice of rejection to renew each year.

(2) On January 31, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that it would refuse to renew the contract by sending mobile phone text messages, and thus, the instant lease was not renewed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, since the lease of this case was terminated, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff at the same time as receiving KRW 10 million from the plaintiff.

B. (1) The defendant exercised the right to request renewal of the lease. Therefore, it is asserted that the lease of this case was renewed and still has the right to possess it.

(B) The lessee’s right to request renewal of the contract must be exercised from six months to one month before the expiration of the lease term.

(Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s expression of intent to renew the lease of this case had contacted the Plaintiff one month prior to the termination of the lease of this case from March 31, 2019.

The defendant's defense, which is premised on the renewal of the lease contract of this case, is without merit.

(2) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the right of retention defense can be exercised before the right of retention is returned as beneficial costs, since the Defendant increased objective values while leasing the instant building.

However, A.