1. Defendant B’s delivery of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet from Defendant C, simultaneously with the Plaintiff 42,335.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant B by setting the deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000 (payment on December 25, 2015), and the term from December 24, 2015 to December 23, 2017, with respect to the land and buildings listed in the separate sheet jointly owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

나. 원고는 그 무렵 피고 B에게 임대차보증금을 지급하고 이 사건 부동산에서 굼벵이사육장을 운영하였고, 원고의 친구인 피고 C은 원고와 함께 이 사건 부동산을 점유사용하였다.

C. On January 24, 2018 and February 7, 2018, Defendant B sent a content-certified mail to the Plaintiff and Defendant C, stating that “The period of lease expires and the lessee requested the construction of the house by the contract deadline, but the lessee fails to perform it, so that the instant real estate can be restored to its original state and returned it.”

At present, Defendant C occupies the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion termination of the instant lease agreement, Defendant B, a lessor, should pay the Plaintiff, a lessee, the remainder of KRW 45.2 million after deducting the unpaid rent from KRW 5.8 million.

B. Determination 1) According to the facts and the purport of the entire pleadings recognized earlier, such as whether the instant lease agreement was terminated, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant B had expressed in advance the intention to terminate the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff and Defendant C upon the expiration of the period of validity. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the expiration of December 23, 2017 (Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion that the instant lease agreement still remains valid is reasonable.