2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3.

A. On January 26, 199, the Plaintiff promised C to lease real estate (hereinafter “the instant apartment” and “D”) listed in the attached list, which is a public construction rental housing (five years after the lease period), to C, and the Plaintiff may refuse to cancel and renew the lease contract if C transfers the right of lease in violation of the Rental Housing Act or sub-lease the instant apartment to another person.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Defendants acquired the right to lease of the instant apartment from C on May 2002, and Defendant A completed the move-in report of the instant apartment on May 9, 2002, and Defendant B completed the move-in report of the instant apartment on December 30, 2015, and live in the instant apartment.

C. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) was living in D; (b) was entitled to conversion for sale in lots; (c) was given to a qualified person; and (d) notified that he/she was to deliver an apartment; and (c) on August 27, 2014 and December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants, etc. of the termination of the lease on the ground of transfer of right of lease without permission and sub-lease.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1-6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, C transferred the right to lease the apartment of this case to the Defendants without the Plaintiff’s consent, and on the ground that the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract.

Therefore, barring any other circumstances, the instant lease contract was terminated, and the Defendants should deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion that implied approval was an illegal act, and the Defendants acquired the right to lease the instant apartment from May 2002, and lived in the instant apartment for 14 to 15 years from May 2002, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection with its knowledge.

Therefore, the plaintiff is implicitly and explicitly the defendants' apartment of this case.