beta
Text
1. Of the buildings listed in the attached list, the Defendant points out each of the following items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1:
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The original Defendant entered into a lease agreement with respect to the section 120 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) at the place of the ship as indicated in paragraph (1) of this Article as follows.
The lease term of the date of an agreement shall be between December 30, 207 and May 24, 2008, May 30, 2008:
B. On May 13, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail that refuses to renew the lease agreement.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 to 5, Gap evidence 5-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the above lease contract concluded between the original defendant was terminated on August 12, 2016 due to the expiration of the lease term on August 12, 2016, and even if the above lease term is implicitly renewed from June 1, 2014 to August 11, 2014, which is the day following the expiration of the lease term indicated in No. 4 in the table of the above subparagraph 1 (a) and the day following the expiration of the lease term, the above term is not included in the whole lease term, since the whole lease term has already been over five years, the defendant could not exercise the right to request the renewal of the contract against the plaintiff under the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 15791, Oct. 16, 2018). Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the plaintiff to the plaintiff.
B. On August 12, 2016, the expiration date of the lease agreement stated in No. 5 No. 5, the Defendant asserted that the expiration date of the lease agreement was August 12, 2020, on the premise that the above lease agreement was implicitly renewed. However, as seen earlier, as the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal of renewal between six months and one month before the expiration date of the above lease agreement, it is not recognized as implied renewal as alleged by the Defendant.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.