(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From September 15, 2017, the amount of KRW 5,100,00 and KRW 5,00.

A. On October 29, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant regarding the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The main contents are as follows.

Lease contract

1. Location of indication of real estate: Gwangju City in Gyeonggi-do; and

2. Deposit for the contents of a contract: daily deposit (10,000,000): Article 2 (Duration) of the Act shall be delivered to the lessee by November 15, 2016 in such a state that the lessor is able to use and benefit from the said real estate for the purposes of the lease, and the lease period shall be from the date of delivery to November 14, 2018.

Article 4 (Termination of Contract) If the lessee fails to pay the rent for a period of two years, or if the lessee violates Article 3, the lessor may terminate the contract without delay.

B. From July 15, 2017, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent under the instant lease agreement.

C. On August 18, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content certification that contains the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant content certification”) on the ground that the Plaintiff had not been paid a two-time rent, and the content certification reached the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of the determination, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated as a service of certification of the content of the instant case.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay the unpaid rent of KRW 5.1 million and the amount of money calculated by the rate of KRW 1.7 million per month from September 15, 2017 to September 17.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff interfered with the use of the access road to the real estate of this case due to light rail, etc.