On May 26, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the land indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) from D and installed five plastic houses, such as the indication of the attached sheet.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B on the use of the vinyl (hereinafter “instant use contract”) with the third Dong (in sequence of the marks indicated in the attached Form No. 1, b, c, d, f, and Ga; hereinafter “instant vinyl”). From April 1, 2015 to April 1, 2017, the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant vinyl house by Defendant B and his spouse from around that time.

C. On November 16, 2017, Defendant C issued and delivered a performance certificate to the Plaintiff, stating that “I will restore the instant vinyl house that I and I spouse leased and used, to its original state by December 30, 2017.”

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to deem that the instant use contract terminated with the expiration of its validity. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the instant vinyl to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

3. The Defendants, at the time of the conclusion of the instant use contract, promised “the conclusion of a lease agreement between D and the owner of the instant land and the guarantee of agricultural activities for a minimum of five years.” Unless the said promise is observed, the instant use contract cannot be deemed to have been terminated at the expiration of the period. Even if the instant use contract was terminated, the Defendants cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition until they receive reimbursement for the expenses invested for the renovation of the instant vinyl.