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

(b) from January 6, 2014, entry in the separate sheet is made.

A. On January 6, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000 for the buildings listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant, monthly rent of KRW 700,000, and the lease period from January 6, 2012 to January 6, 2014.

B. From August 6, 2012, the Defendant did not pay the monthly rent to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent upon the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint, and reached October 22, 2013.

C. The Defendant deposited KRW 1,900,000 as the rent in arrears on March 4, 2014.

The plaintiff was awarded the right to use and benefit from one of the co-owners of the buildings listed in the attached Form list from other co-owners.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap 1-3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant lease contract was terminated as a rent-free body of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff the building indicated in the separate sheet to its original state, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 700,000 per month from January 6, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of real estate listed in the separate sheet.

[Plaintiff] From August 6, 2012 to January 5, 2014, the monthly rent of KRW 11,900,000 (i.e., KRW 700,000 per month x 17 months) is deducted from KRW 10,00,00, and the remaining monthly rent of KRW 1,90,000 has been paid on March 4, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant only sought payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from January 6, 2014, with the repair cost and facility cost of the building; the Defendant incurred KRW 33,00,000,000 as a result of the suspension of business, such as goods and fixtures; and there is no evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion that there was a second demand to exercise the right of retention.