(a) deliver each real estate listed in separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3;

(b) KRW 26,400,000 and April 2014.

A. On May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and the Plaintiff by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million, monthly rent of KRW 80 million (value-added tax, payment on June 15, 2014) and the lease term from June 15, 2014 to June 15, 2016.

The Defendant paid KRW 40 million among the above lease deposit by the end of September 2014 due to economic difficulties. The Plaintiff delivered each of the above factories to the Defendant around June 15, 2014. However, the Defendant did not pay the above KRW 40 million, but did not pay the rent until August 15, 2014.

Accordingly, if the plaintiff did not pay the defendant the above 40 million won and the unpaid rent by October 31, 2014, the above lease contract is terminated.

“The notice was given.”

[Reasons for Recognition] deemed confession (Article 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant did not perform the above obligations until October 31, 2014, and the above lease contract was terminated around that time.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff each factory listed in attached Tables 2 and 3, and to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 26.4 million in the amount of rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from August 16, 2014 to November 15, 2014 (i.e., KRW 8., KRW 8.8 million per month (i.e., KRW 8., KRW 8 million per month) x 3 months x 3 months) and the amount of rent equivalent to KRW 8.8 million per month from November 16, 2014 to the date the delivery of each of the above factories is completed.

Furthermore, although the plaintiff also sought the delivery of the land listed in the attached list No. 1, the defendant only leased only each factory listed in the attached list Nos. 2 and 3 from the plaintiff, and the land that became the site for the building is owned by the owner of the building. Since each factory listed in the attached list Nos. 2 and 3 is owned by the plaintiff, the above land is the object of the lease contract or the defendant.