1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the primary claim is modified as follows.

The defendant shall be 50,000.

1. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. (1) In full view of the language and structure of Article 10(1) through (3) of the Act on the Lessee’s Right to Demand Renewal, and Article 10(4) of the Act on the Lessee’s Right to Demand Renewal, as well as the lessee’s right to request renewal of a lease under Article 10(1) of the Act on the Lessee’s Right to Demand renewal of a lease upon the lessee’s initiative, the lessee’s right to request renewal of the lease is to achieve the lessee’s right to request renewal of the lease. On the other hand, Article 10(4) of the Act requires the lessor’s active measures at the expiration of the lease relationship due to the expiration of the period, and each of these two legal provisions differ from each other (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da64307, Jun. 10, 2010). The lessee’s right to request renewal of the lease under Article 10(1)1 through 8 of the Act, regardless of the lessor’s prior notification of rejection.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da35115 Decided April 30, 2014). When applying these legal principles to the fact of recognition, the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant leased object was renewed by April 17, 2019 upon the Defendant’s declaration of intent to renew the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on February 20, 2018.

However, after the renewal, the Plaintiff’s expression of refusal to renew the instant lease can be acknowledged as an expression of intent to request renewal of the instant lease even if the phrase of the request for renewal is simple in light of the circumstances leading up to the omission of the content of the contract.