1. The defendant,

A. At the same time, the Plaintiff received KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff and at the same time, the real estate indicated in the attached Table.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a single-story house of 72.68 square meters and general restaurants of 39.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”), among real estate listed in the attached Table, owned by the Plaintiff, on April 2, 2018, with respect to the lease term from April 2, 2018 to April 1, 2021, the lease deposit of 10 million won, and the rent of 1 million won (payment on April 21, 201, and 1.1 million won from April 21, 2019) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and delivered the said real estate to the Defendant on the same day.

B. The Defendant paid only the rent to the Plaintiff on May 2018, and did not pay the rent thereafter.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant the intention to exempt the Plaintiff from the rent for June, July, and August, 2018.

C. On November 9, 2018 and November 22, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant with a content-certified mail that the instant lease agreement is terminated by failing to pay a rent for at least three months.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination of the claim for the delivery of real estate, the Defendant did not pay the rent from September 2018 to the amount of the rent for three years. Therefore, the Plaintiff may terminate the instant lease agreement pursuant to Article 10-8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that the instant lease contract was terminated due to the delivery to the Defendant of the content-certified mail on November 22, 2018, indicating the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the said lease contract.

Therefore, the defendant should transfer the real estate of this case to the plaintiff as restitution.

However, the defendant defense that the real estate of this case cannot be transferred to the plaintiff until the lease deposit is paid by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to return the leased object of this case due to the termination of the lease contract.