1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated in the separate sheet No. 1,2,3,4.

1. Determination on the main claim

가. 인정사실 1) 원고들은 2005. 1. 18. 피고에게 원고들 소유인 별지 목록 기재 부동산 중 주문 기재 ㈎부분 26.52㎡를 보증금 20,000,000원, 월차임 1,200,000원, 기간 2005. 1. 18.부터 2007. 1. 18.까지로 하여 임대하였다. 그 이후 피고는 위 ㈎부분에서 점포를 운영하여 왔고, 별지 목록 기재 부동산 중 주문 기재 ㈏부분 27.54㎡도 점유, 사용하고 있다. 2) 그 후 임대차계약은 갱신되어 2019. 1. 18. 기간이 만료되었다.

3) On October 25, 2018, D’s agent notified the Defendant of the rejection of renewal. [Grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap’s 1 through 4, and 13 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

나. 판단 1) 위 임대차계약은 기간만료로 종료하였으므로 피고는 원고들에게 위 ㈎부분 26.52㎡를 반환할 의무가 있고, 피고는 위 ㈏부분 27.54㎡를 소유자인 원고들에게 반환할 의무가 있다. 2) 피고는 2018. 10. 25.경에 있었던 갱신거절의 통지를 부인하며 임대차계약이 갱신되어 1년간 존속하게 되었다고 주장한다.

However, even if the lease contract has been renewed as the defendant's assertion and continued to exist for one year, it has expired on January 18, 2020 (it can be deemed that the notice of refusal to renew the lease was made by the delivery of a preparatory document). The defendant's assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they would directly use the leased object while refusing to renew the lease contract. Therefore, the defendant could not recover the premium from the new lessee.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 10-4(3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the Plaintiffs are jointly and severally obligated to pay KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant for damages for interference with collecting premiums.

B. The grounds alleged by the Defendant for determination are the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.