1. Of the buildings listed in the attached list, the Defendant points out each of the following items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1:

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 2013, the Plaintiff, among the buildings listed in the separate sheet, leased 24.75 square meters (number 84, store number 84; hereinafter “instant store”) to the Defendant for the period from December 12, 2013 to May 31, 2014, the period of lease was extended to May 31, 2017 by renewal of the said lease agreement under the same condition on May 31, 2017.

B. The Defendant did not pay the rent after December 1, 2016, but did not return the instant store even after the said lease term expired, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the order of the said store, and the duplicate of the complaint was served on November 23, 2017.

C. On March 2, 2018, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the overdue charge from December 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to order the Plaintiff to leave the instant store, barring any special circumstance, and pay the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 147,500 per month from June 1, 2017 to the date of the completion of the order of evacuation of the said store.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not have any obligation to order the store of this case since the above lease contract was implicitly renewed and the lease term was extended on May 31, 2018.

However, the fact that the copy of the complaint of this case, which contains an expression of intent to terminate the above lease on the grounds of the delinquency in the payment of two or more occasions, was served on the Defendant on November 23, 2017, is identical to the facts acknowledged earlier. Therefore, even if the above lease was implicitly renewed, as alleged by the Defendant, the above lease was terminated on November 23, 2017, and thus, the said lease became null and void.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.