A. Of 71.23 square meters, the 1st floor of 2nd floor neighborhood living facilities in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si Co., Ltd.

A. On October 20, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) leased to the Defendant KRW 5,00,000, KRW 300,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000 on the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) part of the attached drawings, among the 71.23 square meters of one story 71.23 square meters of one story of the second floor neighborhood living facilities in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, the Plaintiff, in sequence, connected each point of 22, 33, 4, 5, and 22.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Around that time, the Defendant occupied and used the instant real estate by taking over it.

C. As of November 20, 2014, the Defendant did not pay a total of KRW 5,000,000,000.

On July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written notification to the effect that the instant lease contract is terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent by content-certified mail.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the facts found in the above findings, it is evident that the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in payment of rent is delivered to the Defendant by the content-certified mail or the instant complaint on July 23, 2015, and thus, the instant lease agreement was terminated at that time.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 300,000 per month from November 21, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate.

As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim seeking rent or unjust enrichment during the period in which the Plaintiff could not use the instant real estate from around October 27, 2014, because the Plaintiff voluntarily corrected the instant real estate and could not use the instant real estate from that time. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.