1. The defendant delivers the building indicated in the attached Form to the plaintiff, and each month from November 18, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the building.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. There is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, all facts in the separate sheet can be acknowledged.

B. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff the building indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant apartment”) following the termination of the said lease agreement and pay KRW 375,000,00 for monthly management expenses from November 18, 2017 to the date the delivery of the instant apartment is completed, from November 18, 2017 to the date the delivery of the instant apartment is completed.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. On this basis, the Defendant asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff of the rejection of the renewal of the instant lease within the period under Article 6 of the Housing Lease Protection Act; (b) as such, the Defendant has the right to reside in the instant apartment for two years; (c) in the case of the real estate owned by the Defendant, all of the real estate is a property excluded from calculating the qualification requirements for occupancy in national rental housing as a self-owned farmland; and (c) the Plaintiff was unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. First, the Housing Lease Protection Act can only be applied to the case where the defendant satisfies the qualification to move into national rental housing, such as the Special Act on Public Housing, and the defendant does not meet such qualification, and accordingly, the plaintiff leaves the defendant in accordance with the procedure set forth in the relevant

In the case of this case, the lease of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be deemed to have been renewed, and ② there is an error as claimed by the defendant in calculating the requirements for occupancy of national rental housing of the plaintiff.

No grounds or evidence may be found to deem that the defendant has the occupancy eligibility, and the plaintiff's duty to notify the aforementioned evidence. <3> When compiling each of the above evidence, the plaintiff's duty to notify.