A. From around 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the real estate stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and renewed it. On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

A lessor: A lessor: A deposit for the lease of the Defendant: The rent of KRW 40,000: Management expenses of KRW 1,800,000 (excluding value-added tax): 70,000 lease period: From February 28, 2013 to February 28, 2015.

B. From January 1, 2015, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent under the instant lease agreement.

C. The Plaintiff sought to transfer the instant real estate to the Defendant for the purpose of not maintaining the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the unpaid rent, but requested the Defendant to extend the lease term.

Therefore, on September 28, 2015, the Plaintiff extended the period under the instant lease agreement to the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to restore the instant real estate to its original state and withdraw it from the said real estate by the date of the aforementioned promise.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above recognition of the duty to deliver real estate, the instant lease contract was terminated on September 28, 2015, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

B. We examine the amount of overdue rent, etc. to be paid by the Defendant to determine whether to pay money, such as rent, etc., was the fact that the Defendant delayed the payment of rent, etc. under the instant lease agreement from January 1, 2015, as seen earlier. The fact that the instant real estate was occupied and used even after the termination of the instant lease agreement is based on the purport of the entire pleadings.