1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.

A. Of the 19,00 square meters prior to Sii-si D, indication 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70-70 square meters attached hereto.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, the owner of the area of 19,000 square meters prior to the D prior to Siung-si, leased part of 3,372 square meters inboard as indicated in Section 1-B of the above land (hereinafter “instant land”) to the Defendants, the married couple, for about twenty years.

B. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendants concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the instant land by setting the lease period from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016, with the rent of KRW 4.4 million per annum (including value-added tax).

C. From September 2016, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendants the intent not to conclude a lease agreement again on the instant land after the termination of the instant lease agreement several times.

The Defendants, as of the date of the closing of the argument in this case, shall be ordered to the land of this case.

A. Each greenhouse, toilet, or warehouse (hereinafter “each of the instant facilities”) described in paragraphs (1) through (16) is installed and occupied and used the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts of the determination on the removal of each of the instant facilities and the claim for the delivery of the instant land, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on September 30, 2016 due to the expiration of the period of validity. Therefore, the Defendants, the lessee, are jointly and severally obligated to remove each of the instant facilities and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, as restitution upon the termination of the instant lease agreement.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendants occupied and used the instant land by installing each of the instant facilities on the instant land until the date of closing argument after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent. As such, the Defendants are entitled to the said land.