1. The Defendant has ordered the Plaintiff to 27.77 square meters of housing of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C a wooden flag and a multi-story housing, and from March 11, 2015.

1. On January 29, 2009, the Plaintiff (Lessor) and the Defendant (Lessee) concluded a lease agreement with respect to the housing of 27.77 square meters in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C wood tank and branch roof (hereinafter “instant building”). The lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000 (payment on February 10, 2009) and the lease term of February 10, 2009 to February 10, 201 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The Defendant operated the restaurant in the instant building. The instant lease agreement was renewed and maintained, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to change the term of the lease from March 23, 2013 to March 10 to March 10, 2014.

(C) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to change the monthly rent of the instant lease into KRW 1.1 million after the expiration of the lease contract.

On December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal of renewal.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the determination on the cause of the claim. Since the instant lease contract was implicitly renewed after the expiration of the period on March 10, 2014, its duration is one year pursuant to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. Since the Plaintiff notified of the rejection of renewal on December 15, 2014, it terminated on March 10, 2015.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 1100,000 per month from March 11, 2015 to the completion of life expectancy.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the term extension of the lease period is extended by KRW 100,000 per year by the Plaintiff’s agent around February 2, 2014. However, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s agent’s monthly rent was increased by KRW 100,00 per year, and that the Plaintiff’s oral promise was made at a more than five-year rental period, and that it cannot comply with the request