A. C is the Defendant’s husband, and around 1994, used the building portion of this case as a shop for electrical equipment business by leasing it from the Plaintiff, and has maintained lease relationship by changing the amount of lease deposit, monthly rent, etc.

B. On February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Defendant on the part of the instant building owned by the Plaintiff, which is KRW 10 million, KRW 50 million per month, and the lease term from March 1, 2012 to February 29, 2014 (hereinafter “the lease deposit is not deemed to have been paid separately at the time of entering into the instant agreement”), and the Defendant occupied and used the instant building portion in accordance with the instant agreement.

C. From February 2013, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the monthly rent under the instant contract, and around July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant contract was terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the lease contract of this case should be deemed to have been lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building portion to the Plaintiff, and to pay the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 1.65 million to the rent from February 2, 2013 to April 2013 (50,000 to April 1, 2013) and the amount of money calculated by applying the rate of KRW 550,000 per month to the rent or rent from May 1, 2013 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building portion.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million to the Defendant from 2006 to 2006. (2) The Plaintiff did not repair the defect even if the sewage of the instant part of the building was under way and could not be used due to the defect in the toilet.