1. The defendant shall display to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor an indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 1 of the annexed drawing among the first floor of the building listed in the annexed list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 5, 2005, the Plaintiff leased 50 square meters of “(a)” part of “(i) store” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”) to the Defendant, among the first floor of the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) in sequence with each point indicated in the attached list 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, as the lease deposit, KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000 won, monthly rent, and 24 months, respectively.

B. The above lease contract is renewed continuously, but on July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant store to the Defendant with the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, KRW 700,000 per month, and the lease period of 12 months.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

On May 18, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract was not renewed any more. D.

Plaintiff

On October 28, 2017, a successor intervenor purchased the instant building from the Plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Daegu District Court registry No. 177567, Nov. 28, 2017, for this reason.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (if there are provisional numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease contract was terminated on July 4, 2017, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff’s successor, barring any special circumstance.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant: (a) at the time of December 2005, paid KRW 15 million to the pre-user; (b) removed a partition into KRW 15 million; and (c) paid KRW 30 million in storage, such as installing a warehouse, in which the repair cost was charged; and (d) on July 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to guarantee the Defendant’s husband’s husband’s husband’s KRW 25 million.

Therefore, the defendant can deliver the store of this case before being paid at least KRW 30 million in total as premium and beneficial cost.