A. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff leased a deposit of KRW 10,000,000 and monthly rent of KRW 650,000 to the Defendant, which is owned by the Plaintiff, for the purpose of Article 202 of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Underground Second Instance C (hereinafter “instant building”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Defendant failed to pay monthly rent from April 2016, and the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to terminate the instant lease contract to the Defendant by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

C. On September 30, 2016, when the pleadings of the instant case were in progress, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the monthly rent of two-months, but still, since the monthly rent from June 2016 was unpaid, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground that the service of the briefs as of November 18, 2016, on the ground that the said documents were served for three or more months again.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to order the Plaintiff to issue the instant building and pay the Plaintiff the amount at the rate of KRW 650,00 per month from June 1, 2016 to the completion of the name of the instant building from June 1, 2016 to the date of completion of the name of the instant building.

Since the defendant made a simultaneous performance defense with the lease deposit, the fact that the defendant paid KRW 10,000,000 to the lease deposit of the building of this case is as above.

Ultimately, the Defendant is obliged to receive from the Plaintiff an amount calculated by deducting the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 650,000 per month from KRW 10,000 to KRW 650,000 per month from June 1, 2016 to the completion of the name of the building indicated in the separate sheet.

Although the defendant asserts that the lease contract of this case remains in force, the fact that the lease contract of this case is terminated on the grounds of the defendant's delinquency in payment of rent is recognized above, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The defendant.