1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. From February 1, 2019 to February 1, 2019, the buildings indicated in the separate sheet from KRW 20,000,00 from the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”), the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on March 22, 2016 by the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 17961, Mar. 22, 2016, as to the real estate as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant, which stipulates that the instant building shall be KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,000,000, and the term of lease from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

Accordingly, the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 on April 11, 2016, and transferred to the Plaintiff KRW 2,000,000 each month (including value added tax), including value added tax, KRW 2,200,00.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The term of the lease agreement on the building of this case shall expire on March 31, 2019,” the term of the lease agreement on the building of this case appears to be a clerical error.

After the expiration of the lease term, a notification requesting the delivery of the leased building as long as the lease term expires was sent as content certification.

The defendant did not request the renewal of the lease contract within the period of time against the plaintiff's refusal to renew the lease contract.

Applicant and the defendant did not transfer KRW 2,000,000, which was remitted each month from February 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, and Gap 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. As long as the establishment of the judgment document is recognized as genuine, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the content of the statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da235647, Jul. 12, 2018). Barring any special circumstance, the original defendant is subject to the instant lease agreement, which is the disposition document.