(a) the delivery of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 301 of the third floor of the C building;

B. From March 25, 2015, the above A.

A. From May 25, 2014 to March 24, 2016, lease deposit amounting to KRW 20 million, monthly rent (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), March 24, 2015, and March 25, 2015, the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant the third floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of Gangnam-gu Seoul Building C with KRW 300,000 from March 25, 2014 to March 24, 2016.

B. From September 2014, the Defendant did not pay rent, and on November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his intent to terminate the said lease by content-certified mail, and around that time, the said content-certified mail sent to the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap 1-5 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the fact of the above recognition, the above lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the rate of KRW 3,300,000 per month from March 25, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate, as sought by the Plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because he suffered losses due to the plaintiff's business obstruction. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the defendant's argument

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