(a) Of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, each point indicated in the separate sheet No. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 3;

A. The facts of recognition: (a) on March 23, 2011, the Defendant leased the part (A) of 35 square meters in the ship connecting each point of the attached Table 3, 4, 5, 6, and 3 among the buildings listed in the attached Table from the Plaintiff on March 22, 2011; (b) on June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the monthly rent at KRW 280,000; (c) however, the Defendant did not pay the monthly rent from January 23, 2015; (d) on February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the lease contract was terminated; and (e) there is no dispute between the parties concerned as to the fact that the overdue rent was 4,90,280 square meters until May 22, 2016.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, and pay rent or unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 280,00 per month from May 23, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant did not pay the rent because of the defect in the instant building alleged by the Defendant, and the instant lease agreement cannot be deemed to have been terminated on the ground that it was not paid the rent.

B. (1) Determination is based on the relationship between a lessor’s duty to make use of and benefit from an object under a lease agreement and a lessee’s duty to pay rent for the leased object. Therefore, in a case where a lessee is unable to use the object at all due to a lessor’s failure to perform the repair obligation for the object, the lessee may refuse to pay the leased object at all. However, in a case where it is possible to use and benefit from the leased object only to the extent that it is hindered due to the nonperformance of the repair obligation, the lessee may refuse to pay the leased object only to the extent that it is hindered, and thus, the payment refusal of rent exceeding the above limit cannot be refused. Thus, Supreme Court Decision 8Da1332 Decided June 13, 199.