1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

A. The objective relationship that appears to exist refers to an objective relationship that is not necessarily a mere physical or practical control over an object to be de facto control, but should be determined in conformity with social norms by taking into account the time and spatial relationship with the object, the principal right relationship, the possibility of control over another person, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da211827, Jan. 23, 2014). According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff’s notification of termination of the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on January 18, 2018, based on the Defendant’s delay in rent for at least three years, was terminated.

However, according to the facts without dispute, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant sent the commercial building of this case to another place by arranging the things in the commercial building of this case on or around March 20, 2018, and the defendant sent the text message to the plaintiff on March 30, 2018. Since it is recognized that the defendant sent the text message to the plaintiff on March 30, 2018, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant delivered the commercial building of this case by leaving the commercial building of this case to the plaintiff on March 30, 2018 while the lawsuit of this case is pending and giving the plaintiff the secret number of the commercial entrance of this case.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant did not remove the interior of the commercial building of this case, and seems to dispute the delivery of the commercial building of this case.

However, in a case where the interior of a person established by the defendant is subject to restitution, the plaintiff himself can remove it and deduct the expenses from the lease deposit which remains up until then, or claim a separate claim against the defendant, and it does not mean that the defendant still occupies the commercial building of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the transfer of the commercial building of this case is without merit.

B. (1) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim for monetary payment (1) is made on September 2017, October 201, and January 2018.