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 for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the argument at the trial in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. First, the Plaintiff alleged that he had expressed his intention to extend the contract to the Defendant through C through the Plaintiff’s employee at least 60 days prior to the expiration date of the instant lease agreement. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion only with the statement of No. 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff

B. Next, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed pursuant to the main sentence of Article 639(1) of the Civil Act, and that the Plaintiff was terminated on March 28, 2014, and that the instant lease agreement was terminated on April 27, 2014 pursuant to the latter part of Article 639(1) of the Civil Act and Article 635 of the Civil Act.

According to the main sentence of Article 639(1) of the Civil Act, where a lessee continues to use the leased object after the lease term expires and a lessor fails to raise any objection within a reasonable period, the lessee shall be deemed to have renewed the leased object under the same conditions as the former one. According to the latter part of Article 639(1) of the Civil Act, if the lease relationship continues to exist due to an implied renewal, the parties may notify at any time of termination. However, as seen earlier, the instant lease agreement was extended until February 27, 2015 according to the special agreement. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is possible to give notice of termination under the latter part of Article 639(1) of the Civil Act on the premise of the expiration of the lease term is without merit.

C. Finally, the Plaintiff shall bear all the following charges until the expiration date of the instant lease agreement even if the Plaintiff did not possess at all the warehouse of this case.