The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal regarding the right to request renewal as stipulated in the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the above lease contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was renewed upon the Defendant’s request for renewal on October 20, 2013, on the grounds that the lease contract concluded on October 19, 2007 was renewed, and the initial date of the initial lease period was October 19, 2007.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the lessee’s right to demand renewal of the contract under Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the lessee’s right to demand renewal of the contract

2. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the judgment on the simultaneous performance defense was omitted, the duty to return the leased object arising from the termination of the lease contract and the duty to return the remainder of the lease deposit after deducting the lessee’s overdue rent, etc. from the lessor’s overdue rent

[See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da18263, Jun. 10, 2010; 2010Da18270, etc.] The lower court determined that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the lease contract concluded on October 20, 2013 expired.

However, in the statement of grounds of appeal dated October 7, 2016, the Defendant asserted that the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million and the delivery of the building of this case should be made at the same time, and it is clear that the above statement of grounds of appeal was made at the first day of pleading of the lower court.

If so,