1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is that of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that “The instant lease agreement is a lease agreement to which the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”) does not apply, and as such, is terminated on or around January 2019, six months after the Plaintiff’s notice of termination of the contract pursuant to Articles 639 and 635 of the Civil Act, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate recorded in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.”

The conversion deposit of the instant lease agreement exceeds the amount guaranteed under Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Building Lease Act (including value-added tax) with a deposit of KRW 436 million (including a deposit of KRW 40 million: KRW 39.6 million x 100). However, Article 10 of the instant lease agreement provides that “this contract shall be automatically extended unless there is a separate declaration of intention from the expiration date on the two-month contract period from the expiration date, unless the two-month contract period is expressed,” Article 3 provides that the contract period shall be two years, Article 3 provides that the contract period shall be two years, and Paragraph (3) provides that the contract period shall be two years, and Paragraph (3) provides that the defendant shall guarantee the business rights for the two-year period and the subsequent three-year period, and the defendant wants to continue to continue to operate the instant lease, as seen in subparagraph 2(b) of the judgment of the first instance.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that differs from this premise is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.