A. On April 12, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement. On April 12, 2013, the Plaintiff and C, the former spouse of the Defendant, Kimhae-si, 356.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) The building of this case is a building of 9.84m2 (hereinafter referred to as “the building of this case”) located on the ground, which is a reinforced concrete structure (refinite), concrete roof single-story house, and Class II neighborhood living facilities.

(2) On April 29, 2013, C entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on April 17, 2013, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000, and the term of lease from April 29, 2013 to April 28, 2015.

3) As the ownership of the instant building was transferred to the Defendant as described in the foregoing paragraph (2), the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on April 29, 2013, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000 with respect to the instant building, from April 29, 2013 to April 28, 2015.

(2) On April 12, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000 under the instant lease agreement to a deposit account in the name of the Defendant’s former spouse under the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. (2) A, the owner of the instant land, has filed a civil lawsuit against the Defendant for the removal of the instant building and the delivery of the part of the instant land (Seoul District Court Decision 2015No8059, hereinafter “related lawsuit”).

() On October 20, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment ordering the removal of the instant building and the delivery of the building site, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. If the lessor could not allow the lessee to use and benefit from the leased object, then the lessor could not have the lessee use and benefit from the leased object.