The defendant shall receive KRW 10,396,956 from the plaintiff.

A. On November 14, 2003, the Plaintiff, C, and D completed the registration of ownership transfer by 1/3 shares of each building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff and C concluded a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with regard to the instant building, as to KRW 1.5 million, KRW 10 million per month, KRW 10 million per month, and the lease period from September 12, 2014 to September 12, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. On September 12, 2014, the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid 150 million won deposit to the Plaintiff around that time.

The Defendant deposited KRW 10 million, respectively, on October 10, 2014 and November 12, 2014, to the Plaintiff, but did not pay the following rent.

E. On June 5, 2015, C and D, the remaining co-owners of the instant building, delegated all the rights to lease, such as the right to receive rent, to the Plaintiff, and agreed to settle the rent, etc. internally when the Plaintiff received the rent, etc. from the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the request for extradition

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant did not delay the rent for at least two years, and the lessor delegated all of the powers related to the lease of this case to the Plaintiff, which was at least two years before the Defendant, and the duplicate of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the lease contract on the ground of the rent delay, was served on April 13, 2015, and the lease of this case was terminated.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request for delivery of a building until the plaintiff was returned a deposit of KRW 150 million from the lease deposit of this case.