1. At the same time, the defendant receives 50 million won from the plaintiffs, and at the same time, the buildings listed in the attached list to the plaintiffs.

1. Facts constituting the basis for no dispute between the parties;

A. The building recorded in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) was originally owned by D, etc. The Defendant, since before 202, leased two floors (168.6 square meters) from D and operated a dan, and on March 11, 2012, entered into a lease agreement between D and D as shown in the attached Form -- as deposit for lease deposit 50 million won, monthly rent 2.9 million won, and the term of lease from April 20 to April 19, 2014. On December 11, 2015, the ownership of the instant building and its site was transferred en bloc to the Plaintiffs.

B. After that, the Defendant requested the Plaintiffs to renew the above lease agreement on January 1, 2016, but the Plaintiffs, on February 19, 2016, demanded the Defendant to deliver all the second floor of the instant building by April 19, 2016 without explicitly accepting the Defendants’ request.

2. Determination on both arguments

A. According to the facts acknowledged above, the lease contract relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant with respect to the whole second floor of the instant building shall be deemed to have been lawfully terminated due to the expiration of the lease term on April 19, 2016. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver all the second floor of the instant building to the Plaintiffs, barring any special circumstance.

B. The defendant asserts as follows.

(1) Since the term “building lease agreement” attached to the attached Form substantially refers to a re-contract for the previous lease, the Plaintiffs’ request for delivery of the instant building is unreasonable, since the previous lease was renewed on January 1, 2016 by the Defendant’s request for renewal of a police officer.

(2) Even if not, the Plaintiffs are obliged to return the lease deposit to the Defendant, and the Plaintiffs also cause damage to the Defendant’s property due to interference with the Defendant’s opportunity to recover the premium.