1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff alleged that the real estate stated in the attached Form (hereinafter "the instant tenement house") was leased to the defendant, but since the lease contract was terminated on the grounds of the defendant's failure to pay rent for more than two years, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant tenement house to the plaintiff, and that the defendant has already delivered the instant tenement house to the plaintiff.

2. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff leased real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant tenement house”) to the Defendant in KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 450,000, and around that time, the delivery of the real estate may be recognized either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole in the statement in the evidence No. 1.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Defendant already offered the Plaintiff with a delivery obligation of the instant apartment house, and the Plaintiff delayed the receipt of it. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had already provided the Plaintiff with a delivery obligation of the instant apartment house, and that the Plaintiff had delayed the receipt of it by the Plaintiff, despite having arrived at the Plaintiff on January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff only stated that the instant apartment house was not directly confirmed until the date of the closing of argument, and that the Plaintiff did not directly confirm the instant apartment house even before the date of the closing of argument.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the defendant's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

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