1. The Defendants are in turn indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the buildings listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. Fact 1) Defendant B’s representative for the Plaintiff D (the mother of the Plaintiff)

B) Of the buildings listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff, the part (A) of the building connected in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the separate sheet among the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) is about 5 m2,00 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) From May 25, 2009 to June 25, 2011, the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with the term of lease fixed at KRW 8,00,000 per month, and KRW 500,000 per month. 2) After which the lease agreement was concluded, the Plaintiff and Defendant B concluded the said lease agreement with the term of lease from June 25, 201 to June 25, 2016, and with the term of KRW 450,00 per month, the said lease agreement was renewed on May 28, 2015, and again entered into a real estate lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

3) Defendant B operated a restaurant with the name of “E” in the instant building. 4) The Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement prior to May 16, 2016, which was one month prior to the expiration of the lease term under the instant lease agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, Gap evidence No. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the term, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff.

C. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B did not notify the Plaintiff of the rejection of renewal one month prior to the expiration of the term of the instant lease agreement, Defendant B asserts that the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

However, in full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 6’s argument, the plaintiff notified the plaintiff of the rejection of renewal one month prior to the expiration of the term of the instant lease agreement as seen earlier.