1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. C, the spouse of the Plaintiff as the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 3,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 250,000 (after March 25, 2017), and from March 25, 2017 to March 25, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The Defendant paid the down payment of KRW 500,000 on the day of the contract, and received the instant farmland shed, and paid the remainder of KRW 2,500,000 on April 27, 2017.

Since July 26, 2017, the defendant has continued to delay the rent.

The plaintiff terminated the lease contract of this case on the ground that the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case did not pay two or more rents.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant farmland to the Plaintiff, and to pay rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 250,000 per month from July 26, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant farmland.

2. As the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff, a lessor under the instant lease agreement is not a Plaintiff but C. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed as liable to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff on the ground of the termination of the instant lease agreement, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent and rent. This does not change with the Plaintiff’s spouse.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit to further examine.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.