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

(b) pay 896,000 won;

2. The plaintiff.

A. On September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and real estate listed in the separate sheet with the terms of lease deposit of KRW 1.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 280,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1600,000, monthly rent of KRW 2800,000, and the term of lease from September 16, 2013 to September 15, 2015.

B. At the time of the above contract, the Defendant paid KRW 1.5 million to the Plaintiff and used it as an office after moving to the said real estate, and on May 30, 2014, only major inventory assets, such as high-priced neons, etc., were moved to another place and did not pay a rent after August 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The fact that the Plaintiff, on November 21, 2014, sent to the Defendant a copy of the complaint of this case, stating that the said lease contract was terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay of rent, is clearly recorded. As such, the said lease contract was lawfully terminated on November 21, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above real estate to the plaintiff and pay the sum of the overdue rent of 896,000 won (=36/30) x 280,000) from August 16, 2014 to November 21, 2014, which is the time of termination of the above contract.

The Plaintiff also seeks to pay 2,80,000 won per month from November 22, 2014 to the date the delivery of the above real estate is completed, on the ground that the contract was terminated as above.

Although a lessee continued to possess a leased building in order to refuse the return of the object by exercising the right of defense for simultaneous performance after the termination of the lease agreement, where the lessee was unable to use or make profit from the leased building according to the original purpose of the contract, and where the lessor was unable to obtain profit therefrom, the lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment is not established even if the damage was incurred to the lessor. This is either the lessee who was unable to use or make profit from the leased building