1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and it is recognized that the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance are justifiable even after examining the evidence submitted in the first instance, the testimony of the witness H in the first instance court, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the first instance.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments:

[Supplementary part] The witness H testified that he did not think of the rent of the instant land and buildings, and that G gave rise to the extension of the instant building and solicited the lease to enter into the instant lease agreement (the first instance court testified to the same effect). On December 2017, G testified that G terminated the instant lease agreement and demanded the return of the deposit money, but G did not have any accurate response.

According to the above testimony, since the extension of the building of this case was the main motive of entering into the lease contract of this case, the contents related thereto should have been stated in the lease contract of this case. However, unlike the case of the lease contract of this case, the lease contract of this case does not include the contents of extension in Articles 1 (Lease and Repair of Rental Objects) and 7 (Preservation and Repair of Rental Objects). Rather, there is only a provision that the building of this case existing in the existing area is the object of lease and it

Article 2 (1) of the instant lease agreement only appears to be a provision that equally enters into in the course of using a similar form of contract as the lease agreement was concluded following the non-party lease agreement, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s duty to extend the lease agreement is stipulated

There is no objective evidence that the non-party company expressed its intent to terminate the instant lease agreement and demanded the return of the deposit to the defendant even after around December 2017 or thereafter, and the defendant is non-party.