A. Of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, each point of the attached sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 is followed in sequence.

A. On November 4, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit of KRW 3,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000 (after January 12, 201), from November 12, 2013 to November 11, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 3,00,000 from the Defendant around November 2013, and around that time delivered the instant building to the Defendant.

The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed on November 12, 2015, and the Defendant continues to possess and use the instant building until then.

C. The Plaintiff is a person who was paid a difference from the Defendant on October 2015.

Since November 2015, the defendant delayed to pay two or more different automobiles.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement through the service of the duplicate of the instant complaint, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on February 14, 2018 to the Defendant.

[Recognizing Facts] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the instant lease agreement was terminated on February 14, 2018, based on the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to terminate the contract for reasons of delinquency in rent for at least two years, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff by reinstatement. 2) According to the above facts, according to the part of the claim for overdue rent and rent equivalent to the instant rent, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the overdue rent up to February 14, 2018, and the rent up to February 15, 2018 from February 15, 2018 to the delivery of the instant building.

The Plaintiff is a person who was paid the tea from the Defendant to October 2015 (the Plaintiff’s commencement date and completion date are not clearly asserted, and thus, is deemed from October 12, 2015 to November 11, 2015).