1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the annex;

B. From September 30, 2014 to the delivery date of the building.

On November 11, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the building attached to the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million, the lease term by November 29, 2014, and the fact that the Defendant was in arrears since September 30, 2014 is without dispute between the parties, or that the Defendant was in arrears by gathering the purport of the entry in the evidence of subparagraph 1 and the entire pleadings.

In addition, the fact that the plaintiff expressed his/her intention to terminate the above lease agreement on the ground that the plaintiff reached at least two rents in arrears with the defendant as the complaint of this case is obvious.

Therefore, the above lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated by the plaintiff's declaration of intention of termination on the ground of the defendant's default of rent (the defendant's default rent is settled out of the lease deposit, so the plaintiff cannot terminate the above lease on the ground of the defendant's delay of rent. However, even if the lease deposit paid by the tenant to the landlord remains, the tenant is not exempted from the obligation to pay rent, or the landlord is not obligated to settle the amount of the rent in arrears from the lease deposit, and the above argument is not acceptable). The defendant delivers the building of this case to the plaintiff, and return the overdue rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent from September 30, 2014 to the delivery date of the building of this case from September 30, 2014 to the delivery date of the building of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it