1. Defendant B, at the same time, received KRW 110 million from the Plaintiff and entered in the attached list in the Plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

On May 14, 2012, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) leased the part of item (a) of item (a) of item 1 of the building from D, the co-ownership right holder of the building listed in the separate sheet, as of May 14, 2012.

The lease term was 12 months from May 15, 2012 to May 14, 2013, the lease deposit was 10 million won for the lease deposit, and 5.2 million won for the rent, and the lease contract has been implicitly renewed each year thereafter.

around June 2003, Defendant C leased the part as stated in Section 1-B(b) of Disposition No. 1 of the building in the attached list from D.

The lease term was 12 months from June 20, 2003, the lease deposit was 95 million won, and the rent was 2.5 million won per month, which was later renewed each year, and the rent was increased by 3 million won per month.

The Plaintiff purchased it from D and E, co-owners of buildings listed in the attached list, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 19, 2016.

On July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff terminated the lease agreement through the Attorney F, an agent, sent each mail to the Defendants, stating that the lease agreement is terminated, and that each of the lease agreements is delivered. This reached the Defendants around that time.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including a provisional number) and the purport of the entire argument are as follows: The lease agreement of the defendant company to the part of the defendant company which caused the claim for judgment of the whole purport of the pleading is KRW 630 million (=5.2 million won x 100 million) and the converted lease guarantee amount under Article 2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Building Lease Act (i.e., KRW 10 million x 1.4 billion). Thus, Article 2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Building Lease Act exceeds the amount of KRW 40 million as determined with respect to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City. Thus, the provisions for implied renewal under Article 10(4) of the Act on the Lease of a Commercial Name shall not be applied pursuant to the proviso of Article 2(1) of the Ma

Therefore, the lease contract of the defendant company becomes an implied renewal in accordance with Article 639 of the Civil Code.