1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, the appointed party) and the appointed party C are the parties.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 1, 2013, D entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and the selector (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”), the deposit amount of KRW 15,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000 (the 30th of January), and the period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the said lessor by completing the registration of ownership transfer on the 29th of the same month following the purchase of the instant building from D.

C. In the instant building, the Defendant suspended the operation of a private teaching institute from August 2015, and did not pay the monthly rent from July 2015.

On September 17, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant, etc. a certificate to the effect that the instant lease contract is terminated on the grounds of the delinquency in rent for at least two years.

E. On the other hand, around December 16, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of the purport to require the renewal of the said lease agreement, and the Plaintiff rejected the request on the grounds of at least three occasions of delinquency in rent on the 21st day of the same month, and issued a certificate of the purport to deliver the instant building by December 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9 (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The instant lease agreement on the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit is governed by the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Act”), and the Plaintiff’s notification of termination as of September 17, 2015 and notification of the Plaintiff’s rejection of renewal as of December 21, 2015 is invalid. Therefore, the instant lease agreement is deemed to have been renewed under the same condition as the former lease pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Commercial Building Lease Act, and the Plaintiff’s service of a duplicate of the complaint in this case.