A. On June 15, 2008, the Plaintiff leased 406 units of the building on the fourth floor listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant as KRW 40,000,000 for lease deposit, KRW 3,000,00 for monthly rent (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the lease period from June 15, 2008 to June 14, 2010 for the lease period. The lease contract thereafter has been continuously renewed without any change in the deposit and monthly rent (hereinafter “instant lease”).

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that, at the time of the above lease agreement, the Defendant would pay the monthly rent on the 15th of each month, and the Plaintiff would be able to terminate the lease agreement if the payment was delayed at least three times.

However, the defendant did not pay the monthly rent over four times in total, including two times in 2008, one time in 2010, and one time in 2014.

On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant his/her intent to terminate the instant lease agreement by content-certified mail, and served the Defendant at business time.

[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-2, and Gap evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the above findings, the instant lease agreement was terminated on May 6, 2016, at least six months after the Plaintiff declared the intention of termination.

Therefore, (Article 635 of the Civil Act). The defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

Since the defendant cannot deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff before the refund of deposit money, the defendant did not pay a total of KRW 13,200,000 for monthly rent and value-added tax for four months. As seen earlier, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff at the same time with payment of KRW 26,80,000, which is the remainder after deducting the above arrears from the deposit money for lease of this case. Thus, the defendant's defense is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and there is no reason for the remainder.

The defendant is a monthly rent.