1. The defendant. A. The defendant is the plaintiff.

In Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu, Nowon-gu, the Seoul subway 4 C Station, and the Corporation shall be able to use the attached drawings.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a local public corporation established under the Local Public Enterprises Act and is a person who manages and operates the Seoul subway 4 C Station in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

나. 원고는 2009. 5. 11. 피고와 서울 노원구 B에 있는 서울지하철 4호선 C역 구내 별지 도면 표시 ㉠, ㉡, ㉢, ㉣, ㉠의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ‘D’ 부분 29.28㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 부동산’이라고 한다)에 관하여 임대기간 2009. 5. 11.부터 2014. 5. 10.까지, 임대보증금 26,990,000원, 차임 월 1,499,300원으로 정하여 임대차계약(이하 ‘이 사건 임대차계약’이라고 한다)을 체결하였다.

C. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the difference by May 10, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5 evidence, Eul 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, since the instant lease contract was terminated on May 10, 2014, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the rate of KRW 1,49,300 per month from May 11, 2015 to the time of delivery of the instant real estate.

3. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant has the right to request the renewal of a lessee's contract under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the plaintiff should extend the term of lease until the commencement of remodeling of the C Station.

However, under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, a lessee’s right to request renewal of a contract can only be exercised within the extent that the whole term of lease including the initial term of lease does not exceed five years (Article 10(2)). This case’s lease agreement was made for five years from the beginning, and there was no provision on the renewal or extension of the term of the lease in this case’s lease agreement. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.