(a) deliver the buildings listed in the annex;

B. As from April 17, 2015, KRW 4,200,00 and the above.

A. On February 12, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the attached building to the Defendant as KRW 5 million, KRW 650,000 per month, KRW 650,00 per month, and the period from March 15, 2010. On March 2012, the Plaintiff re-leased the building by setting the deposit amount of KRW 5 million and KRW 700,00 per month.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”) B.

The defendant does not pay the difference from October 16, 2014.

C. On May 24, 2015, a copy of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay of rent reaches the Defendant.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the building indicated in the attached Form to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 4.2 million in arrears for six months from October 16, 2014 to April 15, 2015, as well as the rent of KRW 700,000 per month from April 17, 2015 to the date the delivery of the building is completed.

B. The Defendant asserts that the instant lease contract term has not expired, but even if the contract term has not expired, as seen earlier, the instant lease contract was terminated lawfully by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay of rent, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff unfairly demanded the payment of the rent increase and reserved the payment of the rent. However, the defendant's assertion is without merit because the reason alleged by the defendant alone does not constitute a ground to refuse the payment of the rent or to justify the delinquency.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.