1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, purport of the whole pleadings);

A. On January 5, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with the terms that the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant by setting the deposit amount of KRW 130 million, and the period from February 2, 2012 to February 2, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Under the instant lease agreement, the Defendant paid a deposit of KRW 130 million to the Plaintiff, and resided in the instant real estate upon delivery. The instant lease agreement was extended to two years on February 2, 2014 under the same conditions.

C. From October 12, 2015, the Plaintiff made several calls to the Defendant regarding the increase of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, and decided to increase the deposit for lease on the condition of repairing the instant real estate between the Defendant and the Defendant.

On January 26, 2016, the Defendant sent a text message stating that the Plaintiff can pay the increased deposit amount to be the aggregate repair. Accordingly, on February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a text message to the Defendant only that the Plaintiff will accept the toilet amounting to KRW 10 million. Accordingly, the Defendant sent a text message to the Plaintiff that the boiler and sewage stop will receive the deposit amount from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sent a text message stating that the Plaintiff should raise the deposit amount to KRW 20 million when the Plaintiff fully accepts the boiler and sewage s to the Plaintiff.

E. After that, on February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff was seeking to convert the instant real estate into monthly wage, and text messages, stating that the Plaintiff was placed in the middle place of the instant real estate on February 4, 2016, and requested to modify the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement two months prior to the maturity of the instant lease agreement on March 1, 2016, and did not constitute an implied renewal of the instant lease because consultation was not final.