1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Among the buildings listed in the attached Form, each point is indicated in the attached Form 1, (2), (3), (4), and (1);

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) indicated in the attached Form No. 1, (2), (3), (4), and (2) indicated in the attached Form No. 33 square meters (hereinafter “instant house”) among the buildings indicated in the attached Form No. 2013; and (b) leased to the Defendant a deposit of KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000, and the period from April 29, 2013.

B. After concluding a renewal contract, the Plaintiff returned 2,000,000 won out of the deposit to the Defendant, and the term of lease extended by April 19, 2017.

C. The Defendant did not pay rent after April 1, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the instant lease contract on the ground of claim termination at the expiration of the period, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 200,000 per month from April 1, 2017 to the completion of delivery of the said house.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's claim before receiving KRW 6,00,000,000, because the plaintiff paid KRW 6,000 to the repair cost by making it possible for the plaintiff to reside in the housing of this case for 10 years on the face of the repair.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant spent 6,00,000 won as the repair cost of the instant house only with the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (including paper numbers).

Even if the repair cost was paid, there is no basis for the plaintiff to bear it.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff leased the instant house to the Defendant for ten years.

The defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim.