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

B. From August 23, 2019, the above-mentioned A

subsection (b).

A. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the building listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) as follows (hereinafter “instant lease”). On May 23, 2017, the Plaintiff handed over the instant building to the Defendant.

Where a lease contract is terminated from May 23, 2017 to May 22, 2019 during the 100,000 won monthly rent of KRW 10,000 (payment on May 23, 201, the lessee shall restore the building of this case to its original state and return it to the lessor (Article 5).

B. From May 2018 to December 2018, the Defendant delayed the payment of the sum of KRW 7.5 million (5 million) of the rent from May 2018 to December 2018.

C. On January 4, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground of the foregoing delinquency in rent, through content-certified mail.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case terminated on or around January 4, 2019 upon the termination of the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s delinquency in payment, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant from August 23, 2019 to August 23, 2019 (the Plaintiff was paid both overdue rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent prior to the date of the repayment deposit, etc. by the Defendant) to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the ratio of KRW 1,00,000 per month until the delivery of the building of this case is completed.

3. The defendant's assertion is required to renew the contract under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act or guarantee the opportunity to recover the premium. However, as seen earlier, the lease contract of this case terminated by termination on the ground of not less than three years of arrears. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable without having to consider the remainder of the argument.

In addition, the defendant is also the defendant.