1. The defendant is paid KRW 30,000,000 from the plaintiff and at the same time, the cement brick structure of the plaintiff in Seosan City.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was the father, donated the C, Seosan-si, 321 square meters of land, and approximately 100 square meters of cement brick structure slives of slives and slives of cement slives, slives of the instant building without permission (hereinafter “instant leased building”). On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land.

B. Meanwhile, on November 20, 2012, D entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a fixed period of 30 million won and 12 months from December 1, 2012 with respect to the instant leased building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the Defendant paid D deposit amount of 30 million won and the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status of the instant lease agreement.

C. D around August 2016 and around September 2016, notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the instant lease agreement and demanded the Defendant to deliver the instant leased building by November 30, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. According to the facts of the recognition of the claim for the delivery of the leased building of this case, the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, and the termination of November 30, 2016 upon the notice of refusal to renew the instant lease agreement, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the leased building of this case to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and judgment (1) are first asserted to the effect that, around May 10, 2016, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since D had extended the term of the instant lease agreement to the Defendant. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(2) Next, the Defendant paid KRW 1,010,00 as the repair cost of the instant leased building and KRW 1,946,550 as the electric utility, and thus, the Defendant is paid KRW 2,956,550 as the sum of the repair cost and the electric utility.