1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff is the defendant as a result of the provisional payment return.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased buildings indicated in the purport of the claim from D (hereinafter “instant building”) from D, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate on February 12, 2018, along with the remainder payment.

B. Meanwhile, on May 30, 2013, D leased the instant building to E with a deposit of KRW 2 million, annual rent of KRW 8.5 million without setting the lease period, and E operated a restaurant at that place and transferred the restaurant to the Defendant around May 2016.

C. On May 20, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D on the lease of the instant building with a deposit of KRW 2 million, annual rent of KRW 8.5 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). From that time, the Defendant started restaurant business in the name of “H restaurant” from the instant building to “H restaurant.”

On April 28, 2018, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to serve the instant building as text messages until May 20, 2018, but filed the instant lawsuit seeking the delivery of the instant building on June 20, 2018, the Defendant failed to comply with the instant lawsuit. As a result, the judgment of the first instance court was rendered on April 9, 2019.

E. On May 13, 2019, an enforcement officer affiliated with the Jeju District Court issued a real estate transfer enforcement (this court I) on the instant real estate with the judgment of the first instance court as executive title, and delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff. [The grounds for recognition: (a) the fact that there is no dispute; (b) the entries of Gap’s 1, 2, 4, 6; (c) Eul’s 1 and 2; and (d) the purport of the entire

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On May 19, 2018, the Plaintiff determined on the claim on the expiration of the lease term of this case as of May 19, 2018, under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, that the lease term of this case was one year, and the Plaintiff purchased the building of this case and expressed the Defendant’s intention to refuse to renew the lease of this case, and thereafter, expressed his intention to refuse to renew the lease of this case more orally.