1. The defendant shall indicate to the plaintiff the attached drawings in the C Station located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement of Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2.

On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a specialized store operation contract with the effect that the Plaintiff may occupy and use the miscellaneous futures store while operating the miscellaneous futures store during the contract period in the part of the building stipulated in Paragraph (1)(a) of this Article (hereinafter “instant store”). In the event that the contract is terminated due to the expiration of the contract period, etc., the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to return the store and remove the facilities installed in the store and restore it to its original state, and deliver the instant store

After that, the plaintiff and the defendant finally extended the contract term by May 31, 2017.

According to the expiration of the extended contract period, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant by mail with content certification as of May 25, 2017 that “after running the business until May 31, 2017, equipment, things, etc. are taken out and the store is returned.”

On June 2, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of “to restore the store to its original state by June 7, 2017,” by re-certified mail of content.

However, the defendant has occupied the store of this case until now.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated on May 31, 2017 with the expiration of the period of validity, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the instant store pursuant to the contract, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store possessed by the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

The defendant is in the position of successful bidder in response to the tender independently above the estimated price, even though the competitive bidding conducted by the plaintiff to select a specialized store operator with respect to the store of this case upon the expiration of the contract period, the defendant is not designated as a business entity without reasonable grounds in violation of the relevant statutes.