1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. At the same time, 50,000 won is paid by the Plaintiff, the buildings listed in the attached Table shall be added thereto.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 27, 2018, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the instant building is leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the content that: (a) KRW 50 million for lease deposit; (b) KRW 2750,00 for monthly rent (including value added tax; and (c) the Defendant pays the Plaintiff KRW 880,000 (amount of actual use for electricity and gas), including the above rent and value added tax, at the end of each month); (d) the period from September 5, 2018 to September 5, 2020; and (e) the instant building was handed over to the Defendant around that time.

B. From around that time, the Defendant operates the instant building with the trade name “C”, and did not pay a monthly rent from October 2018. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant on January 9, 2019 that the instant lease contract was terminated on the ground of the three-year overdue delay from October 9, 2018 to December 12, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated upon termination, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and pay the overdue rent from October 2018 to the Plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment, management expenses, etc. equivalent to the rent after the termination of the instant lease agreement.

B. The Defendant asserted that the instant building goes against the Fire Services Act and subordinate statutes, and did not run the business until December 2018, 2018, when around October 2018, as the instant building was in conflict with the owner of the building. This is due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the owner, and thus, there is no obligation to pay rent up to the part on December 2018, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s termination is unlawful.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, the results of the special fire safety inspection by the chief of the fire department, and fire prevention such as the non-permanent confirmation of the building of this case.