1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. Since the lease relationship between the Plaintiff Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated on August 20, 2016, which is the expiration date of the period stipulated in the first contract, the Defendant is obligated to receive deposit amounting to KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff, and at the same time deliver the Plaintiff a building indicating the attached property (hereinafter “instant building”) subject to the lease to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent after the termination of the lease.

B. The lease relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant was not terminated after August 20, 2016 pursuant to Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”).

2. Whether lease relationship is terminated;

A. The evidence submitted by the Defendant as to whether to renew a contract pursuant to Article 10(1) and (3) of the Commercial Building Lease Act is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to renew the contract from August 20, 2016 to one month before the expiration date of the agreed term, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

[Around October 12, 2016, the Defendant’s sending to the Plaintiff any content-certified mail that contains the content of demanding the renewal of the lease agreement, and the Defendant asserted that the consent was obtained from the Plaintiff on the alteration of the use of the instant building before the expiration of the term of the agreement (the time of seeking the consent for the alteration of the use thereof is before the period of requesting the renewal thereof around July 2015, in accordance with the Defendant’s assertion.

(2) The Plaintiff’s lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant does not appear to have been asserted that the Plaintiff requested renewal of the lease agreement by specifying the specific time and method between six months and one month prior to August 20, 2016. Therefore, the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a two-year period, as alleged by the Defendant, pursuant to Article 10(1) and (3) of the Commercial Building Lease Act, without examining whether there is a legitimate reason for the Plaintiff to refuse the Defendant’s request for renewal of the lease agreement.