(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From August 1, 2018, KRW 8 million and the foregoing.

On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the lease of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 700,000,000, and from August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease”), but did not receive the lease deposit.

B. Upon entering into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to restore the part of the building that the Defendant changed without the Plaintiff’s consent to its original state and waive the beneficial cost.

C. From March 2015 to November 30, 2017, when the instant lease contract has been renewed, the Plaintiff received KRW 1 million in monthly rent from the Defendant. Since December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant on July 19, 2018 that the instant lease contract was terminated on the ground of overdue rent, and the said content certification was served on the Defendant on July 20, 2018.

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, it can be seen that the instant lease contract was duly terminated by the delivery of the said content certification around July 20, 2018.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay the amount equivalent to KRW 1,00,000 per month, which is the rent for the instant lease generated from December 1, 2017 to July 31, 2018, or the amount equivalent to KRW 8 million, which is the unjust enrichment, and the amount equivalent to the rent from August 1, 2018 to the completion of delivery of the said real estate.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant agreed to pay KRW 1 million to the Plaintiff as monthly rent due to the Plaintiff’s coercion or the Defendant’s spouse’s influence, rashness, or influence.

This agreement, however, is valid.