(a) deliver the real estate listed in the annex;

B. From December 6, 2018, the above-mentioned A

(b).

A. If the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the lease agreement in this case") on July 24, 2018, with a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 750,000,000 (after July 5, 2018), and the period from July 6, 2018 to July 5, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the lease agreement in this case"), and the plaintiff and the defendant LAB agreed that the lease agreement in this case may be terminated without the plaintiff's peremptory notice if the defendant LAB did not pay rent more than three times, and the plaintiff did not pay the lease agreement automatically after September 6, 2018 to the defendant LAB, which did not receive the notice of the termination of the lease agreement in this case by not later than 30,000,0000.

According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was terminated on December 6, 2018 on the grounds of the rent delay of at least three times in the Defendant LAB, and as such, the DefendantB is obligated to deliver the leased object in this case to the Plaintiff and to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent by the rate of KRW 750,000 per month from December 6, 2019 to the date the delivery of the leased object is completed, as sought by the Plaintiff.

As to this, Defendant B’s LAB argues to the effect that the termination of the Plaintiff’s contract is unfair since it was paid to the Plaintiff the difference between the overdue rent and the two-year period. However, even if the Defendant B’s LAB is based on the data submitted after the closing date of the argument in this case, Defendant B only paid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,650,000,000, which is two-minutes of the overdue rent, after the termination of the instant lease agreement.