1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is the first floor retail store of 157.5 square meters and the first floor among the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2, 2011, Nonparty C, the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet No. 1, leased the entire first floor of the building (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant for a fixed period of 50,000,000,000 monthly rent, KRW 1,650,000, and KRW 2 years (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On May 9, 2013, Nonparty C renewed the said lease agreement by setting the lease deposit amount of 80,000,000, monthly rent of 1,650,000, and period of 1,650,000 on May 14, 2015.

B. On December 9, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased a building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 from the above C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 30, 2014.

C. On March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the content-proof mail that “The instant lease agreement has expired on May 14, 2015, and the Plaintiff did not intend to renew the said lease agreement.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of the determination on the grounds for the main claim, the instant lease agreement is deemed to have expired on May 14, 2015. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the money calculated at the rate of KRW 1,650,00 per month from May 15, 2015 to the date following the expiration date of the said period.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense and counterclaim as to the main claim

A. First, on February 23, 2015, which was three months prior to the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate demanding the renewal of the said lease agreement, and accordingly, the said lease agreement was lawfully renewed pursuant to Articles 10(1) and 2(3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the said lease agreement was terminated is groundless.

According to Article 2 (1) and (2) of the above Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, this case.