1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 14, 2007, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”), leased the said building at KRW 600,000 per annum to the Defendant without setting a period. The Defendant began to live in the said building from around that time.

B. On June 14, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a contract with a fixed term of the above lease agreement as June 12, 2010.

On the other hand, while the above lease agreement was an implied renewal, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant the content-certified mail requesting the delivery of the above real estate until June 12, 2015, and expressed that he/she had no intention to renew the lease. The above content-certified mail reached the Defendant around that time.

【Ground of recognition】 A without dispute, entry of evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The term of lease that did not set the period of determination or set the term of less than two years is deemed two years (Article 4(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act). Examining the fact that the aforementioned provision applies to the facts recognized earlier, the term of lease on the instant building was impliedly renewed on a two-year basis from June 14, 2007 to June 13, 2015.

However, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to refuse renewal on March 9, 2015, which was between six months and one month before the termination of the lease (see Article 6(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act). Thus, the said lease agreement was lawfully terminated on June 14, 2015.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff on the ground that the lease term expires.

As to this, the defendant invested funds equivalent to KRW 38 million in the building of this case, and carried out various maintenance and repair works, which the plaintiff must return the above money to the defendant as beneficial cost or necessary cost.

However, there is no evidence to view that the defendant invested the above money in the above building.