(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 4,461,610 won;

A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties to the claim for unjust enrichment on the basis of the delivery of a building and the rent or rent of a building, or may be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleadings as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and Eul evidence No. 1-1.

① Around January 7, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) with a deposit of KRW 2 million, KRW 1.5 million, KRW 12 months, KRW 18 million, and KRW 1.5 million, KRW 1.5 million, and KRW 24 months, from the date the contract term expires (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the instant building was handed over to the Defendant.

② The Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff a three-year rent from January 7, 2015 to January 7, 2017, which ought to be paid to the Plaintiff on or around January 7, 2017.

③ On August 18, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract would be terminated on the ground that the Defendant was in arrears with a three-year grace period.

Therefore, the lease contract of this case is deemed to have been terminated by the defendant's delinquency in rent and the plaintiff's declaration of termination. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

In addition, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2.5 million calculated by deducting the deposit amount of KRW 2.6 million from the overdue rent of KRW 4.65 million from January 7, 2015 to August 7, 2017, and damages for delay, calculated by the rate of KRW 150,000 per month from August 8, 2017 to the date of delivery of the instant building.

Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the delivery of the building of this case and the return of deposit are in a simultaneous performance relationship. However, as seen above, the security deposit of this case is entirely deducted from the overdue loan, and no longer remains. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(b)electric rates;