A. On May 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the condition that deposit money of KRW 100,000,000 for the first floor of 217.32 square meters of underground floor (hereinafter “instant building”) among the real estate listed in the attached Table, is set at KRW 24 months from the delivery date of the lease term, KRW 3,70,000 for the rent month (excluding value-added tax, and KRW 25,00 for each month), and KRW 700,000 for the management expenses (excluding value-added tax), and transferred the instant building to the Defendant on May 30, 2013 under the said contract (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On May 30, 2013 and June 25, 2013, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000, respectively, as the deposit for the instant lease agreement.

C. The Defendant paid the difference from the part of March 2014 to the part of March, 2014, when operating one Council member with the trade name “Chman” in the instant building. However, the Defendant did not pay the difference from April 2014, except for the payment of KRW 4,840,000 on September 2014.

The Plaintiff notified the Defendant on June 20, 2014 that the instant lease contract should be terminated on the grounds of the failure to pay two or more rents, when the Plaintiff delayed the payment of two or more rents for April 201 and May 201, and the said notification reached the Defendant on June 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated on June 23, 2014 on the ground of the Plaintiff’s delinquency in rent, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, the object of the instant lease contract, barring any special circumstance.

On June 14, 2014, the defendant argued that he had already delivered the building of this case to the plaintiff. However, in full view of the purport of the whole argument in the statement No. 21, the defendant is existing from June 14, 2014 to the building of this case.