2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) leased real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant with the lease deposit KRW 70,00,000; (b) KRW 190,000 per month; (c) monthly rent of KRW 200,000 per month; (d) monthly rent of KRW 11; (e) monthly rent of KRW 200,000; or (e) the long-term repair appropriations paid by the Defendant, including management expenses, to be deducted from monthly rent in advance); and (e) the lease period from April 12, 2018 to April 11, 2020.

(B) The Plaintiff and the Defendant paid KRW 70,000,000 as lease deposit to the Plaintiff around that time, and the instant real estate was handed over by the Plaintiff.

B. Around March 2019, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to change the lease deposit of the instant lease to KRW 40,000,000 per month, and KRW 290,000 per month. Accordingly, the Plaintiff returned KRW 30,000 to the Defendant on March 11, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above recognition of the claim for the delivery of the principal claim, since the lease contract of this case expired, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

(B) On January 1, 2020, the Defendant asserted that he was a director of the instant real estate, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Even according to the Defendant’s assertion, even if he entered into a contract with the place of director around January 201, 2010, the instant real estate did not go against because the dispute with the Plaintiff was not settled. According to the written evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 10, the Defendant appears to possess and use the instant real estate even until July 1, 2020, which was around the closing date of the instant argument, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected).