1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 22,80,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from November 17, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. Around April 2012, the Plaintiff agreed that the third floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground B shall be leased KRW 50 million per month, KRW 4.5 million per month, KRW 1.2 million per month, and KRW 1.2 million per month, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall have the term of lease from April 16, 2012 to April 30, 2014. However, when wishing to terminate the lease contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be notified in writing at least four months (120 days) prior to the expiration of the contract. In the absence of the above notification, the term of lease shall be extended to one year on the same condition (Article 2 of the lease agreement), even if the subject matter of the lease was not used during the term of the lease agreement, the Defendant agreed to bear the management and maintenance expenses (Article 5(6) of the lease agreement). In full view of the fact that there was no dispute between the parties or the Defendant’s entire intent to conclude the lease contract before the expiration date.

According to the above facts, the term of lease shall be deemed to have been extended until April 30, 2015. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay 20 million won (4.5 million won (4.2 million won) x 4) for rent and management and maintenance expenses for July or October 2014, which the plaintiff seeks to pay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The Defendant asserts that the lease contract was terminated after the lapse of one-month grace period, as the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of his intent to terminate the lease after May 1, 2014 in accordance with the proviso to Article 639(1) of the Civil Act and Article 635(Notice of Termination of Lease without Fixed Period).

However, in this case, the lease term is extended according to the lease agreement, and the above argument is not accepted because the lease contract is not implicitly renewed pursuant to Article 639(1) of the Civil Code.

Supreme Court Decision 2004Da63293 Decided April 14, 2005 and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da63293 Decided August 14, 2010