1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiffs the real estate stated in the attached Form.

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

3...

1. On April 19, 2013, the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the Defendants on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 450 million (in addition to KRW 480 million around July 23, 2014) with respect to the instant real estate, and each lease (hereinafter referred to as “lease”) as of May 30, 2015 from the delivery date of the lease term to May 30, 2015, and thereafter delivered the instant real estate to the Defendants.

2. According to the above facts of determination, since the term of lease of this case was terminated at the time of the conclusion of pleadings, the Defendants, the lessee of the instant lease, are obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs, barring special circumstances.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act because the Plaintiffs failed to notify the Defendants of the rejection of renewal during the six months to one month before the expiration of the lease term of this case. Thus, in light of whether the Plaintiffs did not notify the Defendants of the renewal of the contract within a reasonable period as above, it is difficult to believe that the entry of the evidence No. 2 in the evidence No. 1 and No. 3 is difficult, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. (In light of the evidence No. 4, according to the Plaintiffs’ statement No. 4, it appears that the Plaintiffs expressed their intent to refuse to renew the instant lease of this case to the Defendants on March 2015, which is six months before the expiration of the lease term of this case). The Defendants’ defense is without merit.

In addition, the Defendants, even if they expressed their intent of refusal of renewal, should do so more than five months after the termination date of the instant lease agreement.