1. The Defendant, among the 260.32 square meters of the building on the 1st floor listed in the attached list, shall each include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1.

1. In full view of the purport of the argument as to the grounds for the claim (i.e., judgment on the grounds for the claim (hereinafter “instant building”), the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a commercial building lease agreement with the Defendant on May 18, 2014, including (i) the building indicated in the attached Form No. 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) around 260.32 square meters on the 1st floor of the building on May 18, 2014; (ii) the Plaintiff and the Defendant again requested the Plaintiff to renew the rebuilding agreement with the Plaintiff on the part of 8.8 square meters on the part of the store in the ship connected each point in sequence 1,2, 3, 44, 5, and 100 square meters on the attached Form No. 1 (hereinafter “instant store”) during the lease term from May 18, 2014 to May 18, 2016; and (iii) the Defendant again requested the Plaintiff to renew the rebuilding agreement on May 16, 2010

(3) On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to sell the instant building to Nonparty C and two other persons, remove the building, and then newly construct the building, and thus, the matters related to the authorization and permission, such as building permission, related Acts and subordinate statutes, and legal and physical problems related to the construction of the building on the relevant land, such as disposal of obstacles to the land, shall proceed with the buyer’s responsibility. However, the Plaintiff’s application for building permission may be acknowledged as having the Plaintiff, a seller, registered in the name of the Plaintiff.

According to the above facts of recognition, the commercial lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the store of this case terminated on May 18, 2016.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the plaintiff.

Dor, at the time of conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant paid to the previous lessee an amount equivalent to KRW 30 million under the name of the facility premium, and thereafter installed facilities, equipment, etc.