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

B. From January 24, 2017, the above A

subsection (b).

A. On December 22, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,850,000 (including value-added tax) and the period of December 23, 2017 with regard to the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Defendant operated a restaurant at a place.

B. From January 24, 2017, the Defendant did not pay a rent under the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff notified that the instant lease agreement was terminated on the grounds of the rent delay on June 5, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement is deemed to have been lawfully terminated and terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract for the reason of the Defendant’s delay. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 3,850,00 per month from January 24, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The first assertion asserts that the Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement with the Defendant without notifying the Plaintiff of the fact that part of the instant real estate was illegally extended, and the Defendant paid a non-performance penalty several times, thus, the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

In the meantime, it is not sufficient to recognize the above assertion by the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Meanwhile, as long as the Defendant used and enjoyed the real estate of this case as a restaurant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the rent under the instant lease agreement. The Defendant’s allegation is the following.