1. The defendant shall be indicated on the ground plan of the second floor among the second floor of the building stated in the annexed list to the plaintiff, and ①, ② and ③.

1. 쟁점(☞ “안전사고의 우려가 있는 경우”에 해당하는지 여부)에 대한 판단

A. The summary of the facts and key issues (1) the Defendant agreed to lease the part of the building (hereinafter “instant part of the building”) emitted from D’s order from D around March 2015, to KRW 1.2 million a monthly rent of KRW 30 million, and the lease term of KRW 200,000,000 a monthly rent of KRW 1.23 March 23, 2016, and leased it to the Plaintiff on October 7, 2016, including the instant part of the building (the approval date: December 20, 1967) with the implied renewal of the lease relationship, and transferred ownership to the Plaintiff on October 7, 2016. However, without delay, the Plaintiff requested renewal of the lease agreement to the Plaintiff from around October 2016 to January 2017, the Plaintiff constitutes no concern for dispute between the parties to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (see Article 10(1)7(b).

(2) 결국 이 사건에서 쟁점은, 원고의 이 사건 건물 부분에 관한 임대차계약 갱신거절에 과연 ‘정당한 사유’가 있는지{☞ 보다 구체적으로는, ‘이 사건 건물 부분 등이 노후훼손되는 등 안전사고의 우려가 있는 경우’(상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조 제1항 제7호 나.

may be arranged as to whether it falls under (see e.g.)

B. If the judgment of this court is added to the whole purport of the argument as a result of the (Supplement) appraisal request to appraiser E, it is separate from this fact that appraiser E submitted appraisal reply, etc. to this court, and according to the "the report on the result of the close structure safety diagnosis" received by the plaintiff individually on the part of the building in this case.