1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. In accordance with the expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial, the defendant shall make 82,843 to the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, and this part of this Court’s reasoning is the same as “1. Basic Facts” of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part of the 1st day of each month of the date of payment of rent (Advance payment) in the 3rd page 3, as the 1st day of each month of the date of payment of rent.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Even after the expiration of the instant lease agreement on September 30, 2012, the Defendant continued to use the instant site. Since the Plaintiff, a lessor, did not raise any objection thereto, the instant lease agreement continued to be explicitly renewed pursuant to Article 639 of the Civil Act. However, since the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent from November 1, 2014 until then, the Defendant has a duty to pay the Plaintiff the rent and delay damages unpaid from November 2014 to June 2016, calculated at the rate of KRW 6,903,60 (value 6,276,600, value 627,600, value added tax), the owner of an aggregate building does not have any other obligation to recover the ownership of the exclusive ownership in relation to the ownership of the land in the form of the right to lease.

Since the ratio of the area of the part of exclusive ownership owned by the defendant among the total area of the building of this case is about 46.74%, the defendant is entitled to use the site only when concluding a lease contract with respect to the co-ownership of the building of this case corresponding to the above ratio. D owns 70.08% of the land of this case even after partial transfer to the plaintiff, and it is sufficient for the defendant to conclude a lease contract only with D.