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. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and the Plaintiff as well as with respect to the building listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant apartment”) until September 30, 2017, with the lease deposit of KRW 1,580,00, monthly rent of KRW 38,80, and the lease term of KRW 30,00. According to Article 10(1)7 of the General Conditions of the Agreement, the Plaintiff, a lessor, may cancel or terminate the said lease agreement, or refuse to renew the said lease agreement if the Defendant or a person who belongs to the said household owns another house or occupies it in another rental house during the lease term of the instant apartment.

B. However, the Defendant’s son Party B, a member of the household, won in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 311 Dong 703, which is a business entity, and occupied the said apartment on May 12, 2016.

C. On September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff confirmed the same fact as the indicated in the preceding paragraph, and sent to the Defendant a mail proving that “The Defendant’s dwelling in the instant apartment was confirmed that B had occupied the leased house of LH Corporation as above, and as of September 20, 2016, the instant lease contract was terminated, and until December 20 of the same year, the instant apartment was delivered to the Defendant, and the said mail reached the Defendant at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found earlier, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated upon the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff with the return of the leased object.

In this regard, the defendant argued to the effect that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim for delivery because he is entitled to reside in the apartment of this case, which is a rental apartment due to economic difficulties as a beneficiary of livelihood security.