(a) deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From August 26, 2016:

subsection (b).

A. The plaintiff is attached to attached Form.

The registration of ownership transfer is completed on October 28, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court No. 256087, which was received on October 28, 2013 with respect to each real estate listed in the list (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. On August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into two lease agreements with the Defendant to lease each of the instant real estate, setting the period to the Defendant up to August 26, 2015, a deposit of KRW 1 million, and monthly rent of KRW 700,000,000.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). C.

The defendant did not pay monthly rent from August 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant delayed payment of rent for at least two months from August 2016, and the instant contract was lawfully terminated upon delivery to the Defendant of the copy of the instant complaint indicating the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the instant contract on November 22, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and to pay 1,400,000 won per month from August 26, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of each of the instant real estate, which is calculated in proportion to 1,40,000 won per month, or unjust enrichment equivalent to 70,000 won per month.

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff sought damages by committing a tort, such as replacing the password, which brought the key to each of the instant real estate without the Defendant’s consent.

In addition to the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 6, the defendant, including each of the real estate in this case, is running a studs business in the officetels of more than 40 houses in each of the real estate in this case, including the real estate in this case, and the fact that the plaintiff received the card height of each of the real estate in this case from the employee around November 3, 2016 from the defendant's office around November 3, 2016.

However, the defendant changed the price of each of the instant real estate again.