A. On December 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease agreement between KRW 20 million and KRW 152,00,000,000,000,000 for lease deposit, between December 15, 2013 and December 15, 2018, and the rent between KRW 450,000 for December 15, 2013 and February 28, 2014, and KRW 90,000,000 per month from March 1, 2014 to November 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Defendant did not pay more than three vehicles, and the Plaintiff expressed his intention to terminate the instant lease contract to the Defendant by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated according to the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice on value-added tax for the reason that he was sealed that he was a monthly car, this part may be delivered to the store of this case to be resolved.

The defendant's assertion is not accepted since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice even though the defendant paid the rent and the value-added tax to the plaintiff.

Therefore, according to the purport of the claim of KRW 4,857,500 from the Plaintiff as requested by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is the remaining money calculated by subtracting the overdue rent of KRW 15,142,50 from December 15, 2013 to May 31, 2018.

At the same time, the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.

If so, the plaintiff.