1. At the same time, the Defendant received 190 square meters from the Plaintiff’s workplace of fishery products on the ground C in Tong-si, Tong-si. 70,000 square meters from the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 9, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000,000, and the term of the lease from June 9, 2010 to June 15, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with regard to the 190 square meters at a place of work for fishery products on land (hereinafter “instant building”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant the lease deposit.

B. On May 30, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to amend the instant lease agreement to the effect that the lease deposit is increased to KRW 70 million and the monthly rent is not paid. At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff used the instant building even after the lease period, and the Defendant demanded the return of the instant building on account of the expiration of the lease period. On July 14, 2018, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 70 million and the entrance construction cost of KRW 10 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts finding that the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by implied agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, even if not, the lease contract of this case was implicitly renewed without the agreement on extension of the lease term. The plaintiff and the defendant notified the other party of each termination, and there was no dispute between the parties as to six months from the notification of termination by the defendant, and one month from the notification of termination by the plaintiff, and one month or more from the notification of termination by the plaintiff. Thus, there is no difference between the termination of the lease contract of this case.

Unless there exist special circumstances, the Defendant, along with the delivery of the instant building, which is the object of lease from the Plaintiff, at the same time, KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff.