1. The defendant is paid KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff and at the same time, among the first floor of the building indicated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 1, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant and the first floor of the building indicated in the attached Table 1st, setting the lease deposit amount of about 20 square meters for about 5,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000, and the lease period of KRW 24 months from May 1, 2007.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease contract”). The lease contract was renewed later, and monthly rent was increased to KRW 350,000.

B. On March 8, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that “The lease contract expires on May 1, 2017, and thus, the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract and deliver the leased object to the Plaintiff.”

C. As of the closing date of pleadings, the Defendant occupies the part (Ga) size of 75.12 square meters at the retail store (hereinafter “instant store”) connected in sequence with the point of indication 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached drawing among the 1st floor of the building listed in the attached list as of the closing date of pleadings.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement expired on May 1, 2017, and the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent of refusal to renew the lease before the expiration of the lease term, which was lawfully terminated on May 1, 2017.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the plaintiff at the same time with the payment of KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff of the lease deposit.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) On January 7, 2017, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with the content that the monthly rent is changed from KRW 350,00 to KRW 260,000, instead of 1 partitions out of 2 partitions of the Plaintiff and the store of leased object. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease contract is still valid, and that the lease contract has been terminated is unreasonable. 2) The Defendant’s alteration of the object of the lease contract with the Plaintiff on January 7, 2017, while changing the object of the lease contract from KRW 350,000 to KRW 260,000, based on the evidence and evidence No. 4 and the purport of the oral argument as a whole.