1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From August 20, 2017, the above-mentioned A

subsection (b).

On March 30, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the terms that the Plaintiff leases real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million (payment on the 20th of each month), and the period from April 20, 2017 to April 19, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff the rent after August 20, 2017.

On September 14, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant real estate should be restored to its original state on the ground that the rent was unpaid, and the said notification reached the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including partial number of evidence, hereinafter the same shall apply), and judgment as to the ground for a claim as a whole of the pleadings. According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case terminated at the expiration of the period, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

Furthermore, the Defendant is obligated to return the rent at the rate of one million won per month from August 20, 2017 to the completion date of the above delivery, or the rent equivalent to the rent accrued from the use of the instant real estate as a house.

The Defendant asserts that the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed on April 20, 2018, and thus, it is difficult to make a sudden director.

In light of the above facts, as long as the defendant's failure to pay more than two vehicles at the above time during the period of time, an implied renewal of a lease agreement is not made pursuant to Article 6 (3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit without further review.

The plaintiff's claim is accepted.