1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the owner of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Building (hereinafter “instant building”)

B. On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with a deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 4 million, and the maintenance cost of KRW 4 million with respect to the first floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant store”), from May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”).

C. The following provisions exist in the contract of the instant lease agreement.

Article 2 (Term of Lease)

2. Where a lessor or lessee fails to give written notice that he/she has expressed his/her intention to terminate or change the terms and conditions of the lease three months prior to the expiration of the term and conditions of the lease, the lessor shall be deemed to have extended the term and conditions by 12 months on the same terms

4. Where the contract has been renewed, the date three months after the date on which the lessee notifies the termination in writing shall be the date at which the contract is terminated;

On July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she transferred to D the obligation to return deposit under the instant lease agreement.

E. On March 23, 2017, before the expiration of the term of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate to the effect that “it is impossible to extend the term of the lease any longer due to the discontinuation of unjust enrichment,” which is the expiration of the term of the lease, the Plaintiff sent to April 30, 2017.”

(hereinafter) The defendant is deemed to have been extended one year under the same condition, so the termination takes effect on June 26, 2017, which is three months after the date of receiving the certification of the above contents, and the plaintiff does not have a right to the deposit for lease due to the assignment of claims, and thus the above termination takes effect until the date of the occurrence of the above termination.