1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

3.The proceedings have been brought by this Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 9, 2008, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with a lease term of one year, lease deposit of 5,000,000 won, monthly rent of 450,000 won, and the Defendant entered into a lease contract with a lease term of two years, lease deposit of 5,00,000 won, and 50,000 won for rent of 5,000,000 won for the shop attached to the attached Table 2, 2, 3, 4, 5,000, and 500,000 won for the shop of this case, among the 1st floor of the building listed in the attached Table B and attached Table 1.

B. On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list from C and B for the instant development project (hereinafter “instant project”).

C. On December 16, 2016 and March 17, 2017, C notified the Defendant that the lease contract would not be renewed, and the Plaintiff sent the instant store to the Defendant. On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiff also requested the Defendant to deliver the instant store since the extension contract was not extended five times from May 2, 2017 to August 14, 2017 after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building.

On December 19, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 5,000,000 of the lease deposit with the Defendant as the principal deposit, and the Defendant delivered the instant store to the Plaintiff on May 20, 2018, when the trial was pending.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff sought the delivery of the store in this case to the defendant, but according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant completed the delivery of the store in this case to the plaintiff on May 20, 2018, and the plaintiff's main claim is without merit.

3. On the legitimacy of the defendant's counterclaim ex officio, the judgment on the counterclaim claim is examined.

The defendant is dissatisfied with Article 9 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act at the time of the public announcement of the business of this case.