1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 20, 2010, the Defendant, among the real estate listed in Annex 1 List 2 (2) from C (hereinafter “instant building”), leased the portion 28.8 square meters in the ship (a) section 28.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) connected each point of Annex 2 drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, from August 31, 2010 to August 31, 2012, the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million and the monthly rent of KRW 300,000 (hereinafter “the instant lease”) at the instant store from that time to that time.

B. The Defendant and C did not demand renewal of the lease of this case or notify the rejection thereof until August 31, 2012.

C. The Plaintiff purchased the building of this case from C on March 12, 2013 while operating the rice tea house, adjacent to the instant store, and purchased the building of this case from C

5.6. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer, and succession to the status of the lessor of the lease of this case.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming the delivery of the instant store by asserting that the instant lease was terminated, but on October 29, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the said claim on the ground that the said lease was renewed on September 1, 2013 pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 15, 2013.

(Seoul District Court 2013Kadan36786). E.

On March 28, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail demanding the renewal of the instant lease agreement, and the mail reached the Plaintiff around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The lease of this case renewed as stated in paragraph 1(c) of the request for the delivery of the instant store was terminated on August 31, 2014, and even if the Defendant demanded its renewal, the Defendant (including the Defendant’s birth) shall be the Plaintiff.