1. The defendant delivers to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list, and from July 1, 2018 to the above delivery date, 833.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff obtained permission to occupy and use the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) from the third-party market, and the plaintiff leased the instant building from June 30, 2014 to the defendant from June 1, 2016, and the lease contract was renewed for a year from July 1, 2016 to June 15, 2017, and then renewed the lease contract by June 30, 2017.

According to the above facts, the lease contract on the building of this case is deemed to have expired on June 15, 2018, barring any special circumstances. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, and to pay to the plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 833,00 per month from July 1, 2018 to the delivery date, as the plaintiff seeks, (i.e., KRW 10 million ± less than KRW 12,100).

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the assertion on the renewal of a lease agreement, the Defendant did not have a legitimate notice of termination, the lease agreement of this case was renewed until June 15, 2019 pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”), and there was no obligation to deliver the building of this case, and thus, there is no obligation to deliver the building of this case for five years or ten years under the said Act. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified of the refusal of renewal or the alteration of the terms and conditions between six months and one month before the expiration of the lease term on June 15, 2018, and barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the lease of this case was renewed for one year again under the same condition.

(Article 10(4) of the Commercial Lease Protection Act. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the term of the renewed lease contract has expired for one year.