1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff a building 89.34 square meters on the 1st floor listed in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 10, 2009, the Plaintiff leased the instant building with the lease deposit of KRW 60,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 30,000,00 from October 30, 2009 to October 30, 2012, and around that time, the Plaintiff handed over the instant building to the Defendant.

B. On October 28, 2012, when entering into an agreement to renew the above lease agreement with the Defendant, the Plaintiff set monthly rent of KRW 2,500,00 and the lease period from October 30, 2012 to October 30, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

The instant lease agreement does not provide for the separate payment of value-added tax, and the defendant did not separately pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax to the plaintiff in addition to the monthly rent.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the grounds of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated on the grounds of the expiration of the term, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s defense is that the instant lease agreement is subject to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. However, the Plaintiff did not notify the rejection of renewal or notify the modification thereof between six months and one month before the expiration of the instant lease agreement. Therefore, as seen below, the instant lease agreement was renewed under the same conditions as the previous lease pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. As seen below, the Defendant’s defense is without merit. The proviso to Article 2(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act provides that the said Act does not apply to the lease exceeding the amount of security deposit as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

(e).