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

B. From October 10, 2014, the above real estate is to be held.

A. On July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with Defendant B on the lease of real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) to the following content:

Period: From September 10, 2013 to September 9, 2015, the 24-month rent: 240,000,000 won (a contract deposit of KRW 10,000,000 shall be paid at the time of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 110,000,000 shall be paid on September 10, 2013, the remainder of KRW 120,000 shall be paid on September 10, 2013, and the lessee shall promptly deliver the instant building to the lessor, and this contract shall be automatically terminated.

B. Defendant B paid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 120,000,000 in down payment and intermediate payment on September 10, 2013, and possessed the instant building until now after delivery.

C. Defendant B did not pay any balance, and on September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the termination of the lease agreement without paying the balance by September 30, 2014 by content-certified mail.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, A1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the above findings of determination, since the above lease contract was terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on the ground that it did not pay the remainder of Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of rent calculated at the rate of KRW 10,00,000 per month from October 10, 2014 to the time of delivering the instant building.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant C is the spouse of the defendant B and also resides in the building of this case, and also sought monetary payment equivalent to the delivery of the building of this case and the fee therefor. However, even if the defendant C resides in the building of this case, it cannot seek monetary payment equivalent to the delivery of the building of this case and the fee therefor against the defendant C who is not the lessee under the lease agreement. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is reasonable.