1. Of the second floor of the real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is classified into Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, and Section 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff, among the second floor of the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff, leased the leased property KRW 166,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 700,000,000, and the lease term from May 1, 2014 to April 30, 2016, with respect to the portion inside the ship (hereinafter “instant real estate”) which successively connects each point of 1,00,000 square meters in sequence, among the second floor of the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

While the Defendant had operated a marina business in the instant real estate with the trade name “C”, the Defendant was under suspicion of “from Jun. 17, 2014 to Apr. 2, 2015, the Mapo-gu Police Station established the business of arranging sexual traffic at the said marina business establishment from Jun. 17, 2014 to Apr. 2, 2015.”

C. On November 4, 2015, the Defendant, on the part of the Plaintiff, referred to as “each of the instant letters to the Plaintiff, stating “I will run and withdraw the business from this building until December 31, 2015.”

D) The Defendant prepared and delivered a copy of the instant complaint, seeking the surrender of the instant real estate against the Defendant, reached the Defendant on December 24, 2015, and the Defendant occupied the instant real estate. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the fact that there is no dispute over the record, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was agreed upon by the delivery of the letter of this case and the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, the defendant as the lessee is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff as the lessor.

B. As to this, the Defendant issued the instant letter to the Plaintiff under the condition of suspending the Defendant’s collection from the new lessee of the premium of KRW 6 million and KRW 20 million paid to the previous lessee with indoor interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior expenses. The instant lease agreement still remains valid as the said condition of suspension has not been fulfilled upon the Plaintiff’s non-Cooperation.