1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 7, 2012, the Plaintiff leased a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, with the lease deposit of KRW 140 million, and the lease period of KRW 140 million from August 14, 2012 to August 14, 2014.

B. The Defendant borrowed KRW 70 million from the Han Bank for the payment of the above lease deposit. The employees of the said bank were in currency with the Plaintiff for the extension of the loan period around July 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was notified to the Defendant of the refusal to renew the lease agreement around May 2014, which was before the expiration of the instant lease agreement. Since the said lease agreement was terminated, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff with the deposit and repayment of the lease deposit.

B. (1) According to the provisions of Article 6(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, a lease agreement is renewed under the same condition as before the expiration of the lease period if the lessor fails to notify the lessee of the rejection of renewal or to notify the lessee of the rejection of renewal without changing the conditions during the six months from the expiration date to one month from the expiration date of the lease period.

(2) It is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff, a lessor, notified the lessee of the refusal of renewal from August 14, 2014 to one month prior to the expiration date of the lease term to the lessee solely with the statement of No. 4, the health stand and the record of No. 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(In light of the purport of the entire pleadings and the circumstances where the above bank did not recover claims for loans on the premise of the existence of a lease agreement even after the said bank entered into a monetary agreement with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff appears not to have expressed a conclusive intention as to the termination of legal relations). Therefore, Article 6 of the above Act.