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

B. From January 24, 2019, the above real estate.

A. On October 24, 2018, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) to the Defendant as of October 24, 2018, with the lease deposit of KRW 5 million, KRW 600,000 per month (the 24th day of each month), and the period from October 24, 2018 to October 23, 2019.

B. The Defendant did not pay the rent from January 24, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the instant lease agreement was terminated on February 26, 2020, on the record that the date on which the complaint of this case, which contained the Defendant’s declaration of intent to terminate the Plaintiff’s lease agreement on the ground of two or more rents, was served on the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant officetel to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the rent or the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent at the rate of KRW 600,000 per month from January 24, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the instant officetel.

As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant officetel was transferred to C corporation as trust property, but the Plaintiff was affiliated with and entered into a lease contract as if it was its own ownership, and that the lease contract was implicitly renewed on October 23, 2019 without any notification from the Plaintiff on the maturity date, and that the Plaintiff Company could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because it did not pay the rent due to the default of payment.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement with the Defendant by deceiving ownership of the instant officetel, and since the instant lease agreement was terminated due to the Defendant’s failure to pay two or more rents, the Defendant cannot set up against the Plaintiff on the ground of implied renewal, and even though the Defendant did not claim the return of the lease deposit and exercise the right of defense for simultaneous performance.