1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

B. India from August 20, 2016

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as indicated in the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff’s lease (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with each of the real estate and its site indicated in the attached list (hereinafter collectively “instant factory”) to the Defendant on November 20, 2015, based on the following facts: (a) on December 20, 2015, the Plaintiff leased each of the real estate and its site indicated in the attached list (hereinafter collectively “instant factory”) as KRW 10,00,000, rent 450,000, and the period from December 18, 2015 to December 20, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”); and (b) the Defendant’s failure to pay the Plaintiff the rent from August 20, 2016 under the instant lease agreement, it is evident that the copy of the instant complaint, stating the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground of the said rent, reaches the Defendant on February 7, 2017.

B. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was terminated on February 7, 2017 due to the Defendant’s two or more rents, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant factory to the Plaintiff and return the rent or unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 4,500,000 per month from August 20, 2016 to the completion date of the delivery.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. 1 Defendant’s defense, which determined that the instant lease agreement was impossible to use or benefit from the subject matter of the instant lease, was terminated, and at the same time the instant lease agreement was concluded at the same time with the sales contract to purchase the instant factory and its site from the Plaintiff. According to the instant lease agreement and the said sales contract, the Plaintiff should have had the Defendant use the instant factory as the Defendant’s intended recycling factory.

However, the Defendant could not use the instant factory for the aforementioned purposes as long as the Plaintiff did not perform its obligation to obtain approval of the business through the opening of access roads among the above duties. Therefore, the Defendant under the instant lease agreement.