1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B and Jeonjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City by setting the lease deposit of KRW 5 million with respect to the office size of 43 square meters among the D-based buildings with the period from March 1, 2015 to February 28, 2017. (2) On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C and Jeonjin-gu Special Metropolitan City with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 121.25 square meters with respect to the office size of 121.25 square meters among the D-based buildings with the former Special Metropolitan City, Jeondong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

B. On April 27, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the fact that it is impossible to maintain and repair the leased building due to a fire in the Plaintiff’s owned building, and that it is expected to remove the leased building on November 2016.

C. The Plaintiff’s status on January 20, 2017

Since the removal of the leased building is planned as described in the paragraph, it was notified that the Defendants would refuse the request for the renewal of the contract in accordance with Article 10(1)7 and 8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

On the other hand, Defendant B registered his business on March 1, 2015 and operated a motor vehicle-related service business with the trade name of “E” in the building that is the leased object, and Defendant C is engaged in the business name of “F” in the building that is the leased object.

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry of Evidence A 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The lease contract that the Plaintiff concluded with the Defendants was terminated on February 28, 2017.

Although the Defendants demanded renewal of the contract pursuant to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, most of the above ground buildings owned by the Plaintiff were destroyed due to fire and the removal of the building which is the object of lease is inevitable to prevent safety accidents. Therefore, the Defendants refused the request for renewal pursuant to Article 10(1)7 and 8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

As such, since the lease contract has been lawfully terminated, the Defendants deliver the object of the lease to the Plaintiff.