(a) deliver each building listed in the separate sheet;

B. From February 1, 2018, the amount of KRW 40,00 and the amount of KRW 40,00.

A. The Plaintiff leased each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”) to the Defendant individually, and the specific contents are as follows:

hereinafter referred to as the "contract of this case" is the lease contract of this case.

) Lease term: From April 20, 2016 to December 20, 2016 (the contract shall be made as of November 1, 2016): Total amount of KRW 40 million [20,00 (the building No. 501), each 10 million (502, 503)] monthly rent: Total amount of KRW 2.8 million (1.2 million (the building No. 501), KRW 90,00 (502), monthly rent of KRW 700,00 (503 building) from November 1, 2016)

B. The Defendant leased each of the instant buildings and operated a sports center in the name of “B,” but did not pay monthly rent until January 1, 2017 after the closing of argument.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground of the Defendant’s delay of rent, through the certification of the content of September 18, 2017.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1-5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. According to the facts found earlier, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay in rent, and the Defendant, except in extenuating circumstances, should deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and pay the unpaid monthly rent from January 1, 2017 to the delivery of the said building.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff leased the kick scling joints on the 8th floor of each building of this case and the kick scling joints, which agreed not to lease any similar type of business in the same building, and that the Defendant caused enormous business loss to the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was unreasonable.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is not sufficient to recognize the existence of an agreement prohibiting the lease of similar type of business as alleged by the defendant.