1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant under which deposit money of KRW 30,000,000 for the instant building, KRW 2,500,00 for the tea month, and KRW 2,500 for the fixed-term occupant period from June 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and transferred the instant building to the Defendant around that time.

B. On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a letter-certified mail stating that “The deposit is KRW 50,000,000 from KRW 30,000 to KRW 50,000, and the monthly rent was increased from KRW 2,50,000 to KRW 4,000 to KRW 4,000, and the Plaintiff decided to renew the contract.” On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a letter-certified mail stating that “I will inevitably audit the deposit and monthly rent. I will inevitably audit the renewal contract as notified before the expiration of the lease term.”

C. Accordingly, on May 28, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail stating that “I will request the renewal of the instant lease agreement pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act,” and the said content-certified mail reached the Plaintiff around that time.

The defendant is operating the furniture in the building of this case until the date of closing the argument of this case.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (each available lot number No. 1) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a case where the lease contract of this case is implicitly renewed and the period of time is not agreed upon. Since the lease contract of this case is terminated by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the building of

B. The Defendant asserted that the instant lease contract was renewed against the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant lease contract was not terminated in accordance with Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

Therefore, the defendant.