(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. As from August 27, 2016, KRW 1,800,00 and the above.

A. On March 15, 2015, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”), entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant under which the said building was leased with a monthly rent of KRW 300,000 and the lease period from March 27, 2015 to March 27, 2016, and delivered the said building to the Defendant on March 27, 2015.

B. From February 27, 2016 to August 26, 2016, the Defendant delayed to pay the rent for six months, and the Defendant occupied and used the instant building without paying the rent to the Plaintiff.

C. According to the instant lease agreement, the lessor may terminate the lease agreement immediately if the lessee fails to pay the rent more than twice consecutively.

The Plaintiff notified that the lease contract was terminated through the instant complaint on the grounds of the delinquency in rent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination due to the delay in rent at least twice the Defendant, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the overdue rent of KRW 18 million (300,000 x 6 months) and the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 300,000 per month from August 27, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the said building.

B. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant did not fulfill his duty to allow a lessor to use and benefit from the subject matter as a lessor, such as: (a) the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to install a door, even, and the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff did not install it; (c) the water was stored and water was leaked; and (d) the water rate was enormous due to water leakage; and (d) the Plaintiff did not perform its duty to allow the lessor to use and benefit from the subject matter. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.