Upon the completion of the judgment on the claim No. 2, the Plaintiff leased the building indicated in the separate sheet to the Defendants on March 27, 2015 under the condition of KRW 1,00,000 per month of rent without a deposit (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and the Defendants did not prepare the lease contract. The Defendants can be recognized as residing in the instant building from that time up to that time, and the lease term of less than two years is deemed to be two years. According to the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that the instant lease contract will not be renewed after the lapse of two years of the period of the instant lease contract, on April 27, 2017, while the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the termination of the instant lease contract on April 27, 2017. The instant lease contract was terminated as of April 27, 2017.

The Defendants asserted that, while entering into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff, Defendant C agreed to purchase the instant building from the Plaintiff by 2018, the term of the instant lease agreement has not expired. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the entries of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4-1 and 2 in each of subparagraphs 4-2 have entered into the agreement as alleged by the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

Furthermore, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendants did not pay the monthly rent as stipulated in the instant lease agreement from February 27, 2017, and on this ground, it is evident in the record that the purport of the claim and the copy of the application for modification of the cause of the claim filed on October 23, 2017, which included the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement, were served on the Defendants on October 23, 2017, and thus, the period of the instant lease agreement, contrary to what is alleged by the Defendants in domestic affairs.