1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Out of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, each point is ①, ②, ③, ④, and ②, in the separate sheet;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments made by Gap 1 to 3, 4-1 to 4-3, 5, and 6 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on June 30, 2010 by designating the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 450,00 (payment on June 30, 201), and the lease deposit amount of KRW 4.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 450,000,000,000, and June 30, 2012, and the defendant paid the lease deposit and delivered it to the defendant on June 2, 2013. The plaintiff and the defendant did not pay the rent for the second month after paying it to the defendant on July 7, 2015.

According to the above facts, since the above lease contract was terminated by the termination of agreement, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above store to the plaintiff as a performance of duty to restore.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 2.7 million from March 2015 to August 2015 as indicated below and received KRW 3 million out of the existing overdue rent around June 2015.

Therefore, the Defendant, as indicated in the following table, was 5.7 million won (i.e., KRW 2.7 million) from March 2013 to October 2015 when the Plaintiff was paid the aforementioned monthly rent of KRW 14.4 million (i.e., KRW 3 million), and the remainder of KRW 3.7 million after deducting the lease deposit of KRW 5 million (i.e., KRW 1., KRW 4.4 million - KRW 5.7 million - five million), as the date of payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 1, 2015 to the date of full payment, and KRW 4.5 million from November 1, 2015 to the date of delivery of the instant store.