1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the second floor of 59.2 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached Form.

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

1. The Defendant, on May 23, 2018, leased the two-story 59.2 square meters (referred to as “the resting shop” and “the main shop”) of the buildings indicated in the attached Form from C, without a deposit, from May 23, 2018 to October 30, 2018, by setting the rent of KRW 250,00 per month, and the period from May 23, 2018 to October 30, 2018.

Since then, the term of the lease became October 30, 2019 with the implied renewal.

On October 6, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased the attached building from C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 21, 2018, and succeeded to the status of the lessor of this case.

After the implied renewal of the above lease, the Defendant did not paid rent to C or the Plaintiff, and the duplicate of the complaint of this case, which contains the Plaintiff’s assertion of delinquency in the payment of rent for more than two years, was delivered to the Defendant on February 7, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the facts clearly stated in the record

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the lease of this case was terminated on February 7, 2019. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver this case to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

The defendant defense to the effect that "the plaintiff required to renew the contract at annual rent of eight million won and pressured the plaintiff to conclude the contract not to renew the contract." However, as long as the lease has been terminated due to the overdue delay in the existing contract, the defendant cannot be deemed to have the right to continue possession of the store on the ground of the above argument. Thus, the above defense is without merit.

In addition, the defendant asserts that "the plaintiff is unable to conduct business up to now because he/she was able to follow the door of the store without permission on January 15, 2019 and replaced the locking system to block the defendant's access." Accordingly, in the situation where the plaintiff must enter the main store for the repair of heating facilities, he/she went through due to his/her intentional absence of telephone, and changed the locking system which became unusable.