1. Of the instant lawsuit, a lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the real estate indicated in the separate sheet is concluded.

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s right to request termination of a lease agreement entered in the separate sheet must be examined ex officio as to whether the part regarding the claim for confirmation of termination of the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is lawful; in a lawsuit for confirmation, there should be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights; the benefit of confirmation should be immediately removed because of the Plaintiff’s right or legal status unstable and danger; and the removal of such apprehension and risk is recognized only when the Defendant’s receiving a judgment of confirmation against the Defendant is the most effective means (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da21559, Aug. 11, 1995). As examined below, insofar as the Plaintiff sought payment against the Defendant, such as delivery of real estate entered in the separate sheet, overdue rent, etc. on the premise that the lease agreement concluded with the Defendant was terminated, there is no benefit to seek a separate confirmation of termination

2. The portion demanding delivery and payment of money

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

B. Articles 208(3)1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act of a judgment without a pleading

3. As such, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of termination of the lease agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant among the instant lawsuit is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed, and the remainder is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.