1. The defendant

A. Of the vinyls listed in the separate sheet, each of the specifications indicated in the attached Form 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 3.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition: (a) on July 20, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff, among the plastic houses (hereinafter “the instant plastic greenhouse”) as indicated in the Plaintiff’s attached list, the lease deposit is KRW 6 million for the rental deposit, KRW 6 million for the monthly rent, and the lease term is from July 23, 201 to July 23, 2013 for the lease term (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”); and (b) on the other hand, the Plaintiff and the Defendant may terminate the contract where the payment of rent is in arrears on more than two consecutive occasions at the time of the said contract (Article 4 of the contract), and all the goods installed and kept by the lessee after the expiration of the lease term shall be restored to its original state.

(Special Agreement) The Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff, using the said vinyl, installed a container of about 18 square meters in the part of the ship (hereinafter “instant container”) connected with each point of 9,10,11,12, and 9, in sequence on the ground of Seocheon-si owned by the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant did not pay only the rent corresponding to June 22, 2013 in calculating the rent by paying a part of the rent, and did not pay the subsequent rent at all. The Plaintiff knew that the Plaintiff did not pay monthly rent from April 23, 2014 if it appropriated the above rent of KRW 6,00,000 as monthly rent, and that the instant lease agreement did not pay monthly rent from April 23, 2014 without any deposit, and it can be acknowledged that there was no dispute between the parties to the agreement and the Defendant, taking into account all the content that the instant facility was terminated as of April 23, 2014.

B. According to the fact that the Defendant’s duty to restore unjust enrichment and the obligation to return unjust enrichment on rent, the Defendant did not pay two or more rents as stipulated in the instant lease agreement (Evidence A2), and the Plaintiff’s lease contract of this case is lawful on the ground that it did not pay two or more rents.