1. The Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to issue an order, and each month from September 21, 2015 to the delivery date of the pertinent building.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the plaintiff, on May 10, 2013, leased a building listed in the attached Table to the defendant on May 10, 2013 as a deposit of 2 million won (the balance of 500,000 won, 1.5 million won), monthly rent of 350,000 won (the 20th day of May each payment date), and the term of existence from May 20, 2013 to May 19, 2014; the defendant paid only 50,000 won out of the down payment of deposit of 2 million won on May 20, 2013, and the remaining remainder of 1.5 million won may not be paid to the plaintiff on September 21, 2015, and thus, the plaintiff may be deemed to have terminated the above lease contract, and the defendant is obligated to restore the building to its original state by the first five months.

2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is asserting that the Plaintiff did not pay the monthly rent thereafter, and that the Defendant did not pay the monthly rent before water leakage. As such, the Defendant submitted a written answer on April 22, 2015, which was immediately before April 27, 2015, which was the date for the pronouncement of the instant non-contentious pleading, and thereafter was absent on the date for pleading on August 17, 2016 after submitting only two briefs, and it is insufficient to recognize that the images of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 alone violated the obligation of the Plaintiff to maintain the status necessary for the use and profit of the said building, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by admitting the plaintiff's claim.