주택인도 및 퇴거
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers), the plaintiff is the owner of the building listed in the attached Table (hereinafter "the building of this case"). On July 1, 2013, the plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the defendant on a deposit of KRW 105,00, monthly rent of KRW 35,00, and one-year lease term of KRW 1,00 (hereinafter "the lease contract of this case"). The plaintiff notified the defendant of the termination of the lease of this case on Nov. 7, 2019, and sent each proof of the contents requesting the withdrawal, and the defendant has occupied the building of this case until now.
Meanwhile, if a lessor fails to notify the lessee of the refusal to renew the instant lease within six months to one month prior to the expiration of the lease term, the lease is deemed to have been renewed under the same conditions as the former lease at the expiration of the lease term (Article 6(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act). According to the facts recognized earlier, the instant lease contract was lawfully renewed each year from the conclusion of the lease to July 1, 2019 (no evidence exists to deem that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the instant lease between six months and one month before June 30, 2019). Since the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the instant lease through the delivery of the copy of the written complaint, the said lease was legally terminated on June 30, 2020 without being renewed.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above building to the plaintiff as the owner of the building of this case.
As to this, the defendant was incorporated into the Tae-si D project, which was not recognized as the defendant's actual residence, and thus, the defendant could move out from the building of this case until the conclusion of the consultation with Tae-si.