1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver real estate indicated in the annexed real estate;

B. From June 26, 2016, the above A.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence No. 1 to 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

On August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the instant real estate with a deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.6 million (the subsequent payment on October 26, 2015), and from October 26, 2015 to October 25, 2016 (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and received payment of KRW 3 million as down payment.

B. In addition, the contract of this case provides, “If a lessor or lessee has failed to fulfill the terms of this contract under Article 7 (Non-performance of Obligations and Compensation for Damages), the other party may give written peremptory notice to the person who has failed to perform the contract and rescind the contract. In addition, the other party may claim damages arising from the termination of contract against the other party, respectively, and the contract is deemed to be based on the contract deposit unless

C. However, the Plaintiff received not only October 26, 2015, but also the remainder of KRW 27 million on January 4, 2016, which is the remainder of the instant contract, from the Defendant, and delivered the instant real estate on the same day, but also did not receive a rent from that time, and accordingly, declared that the instant contract was terminated to the Defendant around April 2016.

The plaintiff was paid 12.8 million won for the rent of eight months from the defendant until now.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant contract was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent of termination around April 2016 (the instant contract was terminated at the latest on October 25, 2016), and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff upon restitution to its original state.

In addition, the Defendant’s monthly rent from June 26, 2016 to the completion of delivery of the instant real estate, or even after the termination of the lease agreement, does not have any legal ground.