1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

B. 12,600,000 won and June 13, 2015

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 5, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting a lease deposit of KRW 20 million, term of lease from May 12, 2014 to May 11, 2016, and the rent of KRW 140,000,000 per month (paid on December 12, 201), and delivered the said real estate to the Defendant on May 12, 2014.

B. On June 12, 2014, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 1.4 million incurred until June 11, 2014, and continued to delay the payment of the rent after June 12, 2014.

C. After that, on October 24, 2014, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 4.2 million for three minutes, which was paid in full by September 11, 2014, and the rent from September 12, 2014 was unpaid.

The Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract by serving a duplicate of the complaint on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in payment at least twice.

E. As of the closing date of the argument of this case, the defendant uses and benefits the real estate of this case as before.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts of recognition on the claim for the delivery of real estate, the instant lease agreement was duly terminated and terminated on May 7, 2015, clearly stating that the date on which the copy of the complaint of this case stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of the termination of the instant lease agreement was delivered to the Defendant on the grounds of delinquency at least two occasions by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff as a performance of the duty to restore it accordingly.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s filing of a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent and rent did not delay the rent from June 2014, and the fact that the Plaintiff was paid the rent accrued from September 11, 2014 is the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is the date following the date of the last rent payment, which is the date following the date of the last rent payment.