1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

B. From April 30, 2015, the above A

subsection (b).

1. Basic facts

A. On March 9, 2013, the Defendant leased each of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 150,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 6,00,00 (excluding value-added tax), and the lease period from April 15, 2013 to April 14, 2015, the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building D and E (area 148.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) (hereinafter “instant store”), including the real estate in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased a building of the second floor size of the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, D, and G located adjacent to the instant real estate and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 30, 2015, respectively.

C. The Defendant occupies the instant store and operates a pharmacy with the trade name “H”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul's testimony, Eul's whole purport of pleading

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate possessed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate. 2) The Defendant’s claim as to the Defendant’s assertion was agreed to raise the monthly rent of KRW 6,600,00 prior to the expiration of the instant lease agreement, and extend the lease term to April 15, 2017. Since the Plaintiff agreed to succeed to the status of the lessor under the instant lease agreement with the former lessor C, the Plaintiff’s claim for extradition is unjustifiable.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the lessor of the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

The defendant did not pay monthly rent due to the plaintiff's refusal to accept the lease contract of this case due to delinquency in rent of monthly, which is the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion, since he could not pay monthly rent due to interference with the plaintiff's use of the leased object.