The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff leased a factory stating the purport of the claim to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant factory”) with the lease deposit of KRW 70 million, monthly rent of KRW 70 million, and the lease period from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement, while the Plaintiff, a lessor, owns and uses the instant factory, extended two years after the expiration of the two-year lease period, but agreed with the other party three months prior to the expected change of ownership (hereinafter “instant special agreement”).

On December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a “request to the Defendant for an agreement on the termination of a lease agreement,” stating that “The Plaintiff seeks to sell the instant factory as it plans the relocation of the factory on 2019, and thus, seeks to terminate the contract on March 31, 2019.”

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As the Plaintiff’s instant lease agreement terminated on March 31, 2019 upon the Plaintiff’s declaration of refusal to renew his/her contract on December 31, 2018, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant factory to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the condition that the Defendant purchased and used the facilities installed in the instant factory from the existing lessee Co., Ltd., and thus, the instant special agreement constitutes a protection clause allowing the Defendant, a lessee, to use the factory facilities in a stable manner, and the Plaintiff cannot refuse the renewal of the instant lease without consultation with the Defendant.

If it is interpreted to the effect that the Plaintiff can refuse to unilaterally renew the instant special agreement without consultation with the Defendant, the said special agreement is null and void in violation of the Commercial Lease Protection Act.

3. There are differences in the interpretation of the contract between the judgment parties.