1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the first floor of the instant building.

Defendant C’s children, and Defendant D’s children are those of Defendant B.

B. On January 25, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B and C to lease the first floor of the instant building with a lease deposit of KRW 10 million, annual rent of KRW 11 million, and a lease term of KRW 5 years (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

After January 24, 2008, the term of the instant lease agreement has expired, the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C have impliedly renewed the instant lease agreement.

C. On November 30, 2015 and December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B and C by content-proof mail that the instant lease agreement will not be renewed more, and the said notification reached Defendant B and C.

The Defendants, in addition to the 1st floor of the instant building, install each prefabricated group building on the ground area (C) of 26.4 square meters in order to connect each point of 16.5 square meters in the attached Form No. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5, and each point of 4, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 4 of the same drawings, which are connected in each point of 16.5 square meters in the attached Form No. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5, and are occupying and using the building of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease agreement was terminated on January 24, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s rejection of renewal.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to restore the first floor of the instant building to its original state and deliver it to the Plaintiff, and return unjust enrichment due to possession from January 26, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the first floor of the instant building from January 26, 2016 to the completion date of delivery.

C. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is based on the premise that the instant lease agreement between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C has been terminated, and thus, we examine this.

According to the facts acknowledged above, the instant lease contract is concluded by the Plaintiff.