A. From May 31, 2017 to May 31, 2017, the annexed drawings among the real estate listed in the annexed list are as follows.

A. On June 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant building at KRW 7,00,000, KRW 350,000 per month, and KRW 350,00 per month from June 30, 2013, and on June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on January 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the lease deposit KRW 10,00,000 per month, KRW 50,00 per month, and KRW 24 months from June 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Under the instant lease agreement, the Defendant paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff and agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff around August 31, 2016.

C. The Defendant has used and profit from the instant building up to now, and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent accrued from August 2016, 201 to May 30, 2017, which was the closing date of pleadings in the instant case, is KRW 5,00,000 (=50,000 x 10 months).

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

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated by agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 31, 2016, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay rent and a reasonable amount of unjust enrichment.

B. However, in the event that a lease contract is terminated, the lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit and the lessee’s obligation to deliver the object are concurrently performed. The lease deposit guarantees all the lessee’s obligations arising from the lease, such as the lease deposit, and the lessee’s obligation to pay unjust enrichment arising from the lease after the termination of the lease should be deducted from the lease deposit as a matter of course without any separate declaration of intention. Therefore, the Defendant’s simultaneous performance defense is with merit

Therefore, the defendant 1.