(a) deliver the fourth floor of 106.08 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached list;

B. From August 2, 2017, as above.

A. On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the fourth floor of 106.08 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) from February 2, 2015 to February 1, 2017 to the Defendant’s and Defendant’s wife as the lease period of 80,000 won from February 2, 2015 to February 1, 2017.

(hereinafter “The instant lease agreement”). Article 4 of the instant lease agreement provides that “If the delayed rent of a lessee amounts to the rent of two (2) terms, the lessor may terminate the instant lease agreement immediately.”

B. Around January 2017, the instant lease agreement was renewed, and the Defendant delayed the rent and management expenses of the instant lease from August 2, 2017.

Accordingly, on December 4, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a notice of termination of the contract to the Defendant, and at that time, the above notice was delivered to the Defendant.

C. The defendant is residing in the building of this case until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated at the time when the notice of termination of the contract of this case was delivered to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, and pay 850,000 won per month from August 2, 2017 to the day when the delivery of the building of this case was completed (=the rent of KRW 800,000, the rent of this case was KRW 50,000), which was calculated by the proportion of the rent and management fee of this case from August 2, 2017 to the day when the delivery was completed

B. As to this, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff failed to pay rent because the Plaintiff failed to perform the obligation to coordinate the parking problem among the lessees, but it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had the said obligation solely with the statement in subparagraph 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so ordered as per Disposition.