A. (1) On April 9, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to the Defendant that the lessor may immediately terminate this contract when the lessee fails to pay rent more than twice consecutively, setting the period from June 1, 2014 to April 22, 2017, on a deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 180,000 (in advance, from June 1, 2014 to June 1, 2014) and the period from April 23, 2014 to April 22, 2017.

(2) From October 1, 2014, the Defendant began to delay the rent. On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a certificate stating the declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease on the ground of the delinquency in rent as of January 15, 2015, and the said certificate reaches the Defendant around that time.

(3) The defendant has used the store of this case as a restaurant since its delivery.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts finding, the termination of the instant lease agreement is legitimate on the ground that the Defendant’s overdue overdue charge reaches the two-year overdue charge.

I would like to say.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 1,80,000 per month from October 1, 2014 to the completion date of the delivery.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that: (a) the Defendant asserted that: (b) the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until the lease deposit is returned, as it was installed for restaurant business with a charge exceeding KRW 50,000,000 after leasing the instant store; and (c) the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. (1) The determination of the assertion is based on the following: (a) the Defendant spent the facility cost of KRW 50 million or equivalent value.