1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the buildings listed in the annex, each point of Annex A, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 5, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the lease of the instant building, which is owned by the Plaintiff, by setting the deposit and the term of lease at KRW 800,000 per month, without setting the deposit and the term of lease respectively, and entered into an oral contract for the lease of the instant building to the Defendant. The Defendant was handed over the instant building from the Plaintiff, and operated a restaurant with the name of “C

B. However, upon the occurrence of a dispute over the instant building between the original Defendant, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for confirmation of the conclusion of the lease agreement with the Gwangju District Court 201Gahap936, and the said court rendered a judgment on September 20, 2011, stating that “The lease right of KRW 800,000 per the rent month is against the Plaintiff (the Defendant in this case),” from August 5, 201 to August 5, 2012, the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 27, 2011.

C. After that, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the lease of the instant building to the Defendant with the term of lease from August 5, 2010 to August 5, 2015 (payment on the fifth day of the following month), respectively, by setting as KRW 800,000, deposit money, KRW 500,000 between the Defendant and the Defendant around 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The Defendant paid deposit amount of KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff under the instant lease contract, and thereafter occupied and used the instant building until now.

On the other hand, on July 27, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that the Plaintiff had no intent to renew the instant lease agreement, and the said content-certified mail reached the Defendant around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. There is no dispute between the parties as to the termination of the instant lease agreement as to the cause of the claim. As such, the Defendant’s reply submitted on April 29, 2016 has expired at the expiration of the instant lease agreement.