A. 1) On July 11, 2015, the Plaintiff is a building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) between the Defendant and the Defendant.

(C) The term of the lease deposit is KRW 10,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,400,000, and the term of the lease is from July 31, 2015 to July 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) The Defendant concluded the instant lease contract on the ground that the instant building was delivered to the Defendant and has been occupied and used until now. However, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,40,000,000 on August 20, 2015, and KRW 1,400,000 on November 30, 2015, and KRW 1,000,000 on November 30, 2015, and did not pay the remainder. On January 6, 2016, the Plaintiff declared that the instant lease contract was terminated on the ground that the Plaintiff was in arrears with the Defendant to reach the period of three years, and that the said termination declaration was delivered to the Defendant around that time.

3) Thereafter, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff money equivalent to the rent by August 31, 2016, including the payment of KRW 1,400,000,00 on February 29, 2016, which is the date of the closing of argument in the instant case. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and Eul’s evidence No. 1, the purport of the entire pleadings, as well as the purport

B. According to the above facts of determination, it is reasonable to view that the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the lease agreement on January 6, 2016. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent of KRW 1,400,000 from September 1, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the said building.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff also sought unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from April 1, 2016 to August 31, 2016. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff money equivalent to the rent from August 31, 2016 to August 31, 2016. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion is the defendant.