1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) On December 201, 201, the Plaintiff leased the instant building, a farming warehouse, KRW 10 million, KRW 600,000,000 for deposit, KRW 600,00 for rent, and KRW 40,000 for management expenses (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) However, while the above security deposit was not paid, F subleted the instant building to the Defendant couple, and around that time, the Defendant Husband and wife modified and used the instant building as a residence, and the Plaintiff implicitly consented to the sub-lease.

3) Since then, while occupying and using the instant building, the Defendant couple paid a total of KRW 6,40,000 for rent and management expenses up to September 14, 2013, but later, the Defendant couple did not pay the rent and management expenses. (4) A duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground of more than two lease delays, reached the Defendant on October 1, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and pay 7,40,000 won for the overdue rent and management expenses (=640,000 won x 11 month) from September 15, 2013 to August 14, 2014, and to pay the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 60,000 per month from August 15, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

2. The defendant's defense was proved to the purport that since the construction cost of KRW 33 million was incurred while changing the building of this case, which is a warehouse, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before receiving reimbursement from the plaintiff. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the statement in the evidence No. 1 alone used the cost for increasing the objective value of the building of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.