1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

B. From October 22, 2013 to the above delivery date.

On July 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) of KRW 20,000,000 for lease deposit; (b) monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000 for rent; (c) the lease term of KRW 2 years from July 22, 2013 to July 21, 2015; (d) the Defendant delayed the rent from October 22, 2013 to the date; (b) the Plaintiff was urged on several occasions; (c) the Plaintiff was not paid; (d) the Defendant notified the Defendant of termination on the ground of the rent delay on December 17, 2014; (e) the Defendant still has been using the instant real estate after such notice of termination; and (e) the Defendant is recognized by adding the entire arguments to the purport of subparagraphs 1 through 5.

According to the above facts of recognition, the above lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the instant real estate is terminated by the termination of December 17, 2014.

As the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought the delivery of the instant real estate upon the termination of the said contract, the rent until the said delivery, and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent thereto.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the monthly rent should be determined in consideration of the above agreement, as the monthly rent is excessive compared to the surrounding market price, and that the reduction has been requested several times during the contract period.

According to the evidence No. 1, the following facts are true: (a) there is a store with a smaller monthly rent than that of the instant real estate; (b) however, only on the ground that there is a lease contract around the instant real estate, which is less than that of the monthly rent, there is no right to adjust the monthly rent agreed upon by one of the parties to the contract; and (c) the Defendant requested a reduction of the monthly rent, barring agreement with the Plaintiff, it is difficult to unilaterally assert the reduction of the monthly rent.

Ultimately, the above facts and the amount equivalent to the future rent of the real estate in this case are expected to be the same as the monthly rent under the above agreement, and accordingly, the defendant is the plaintiff.