1. The plaintiff is the defendant:

(a) deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b)payment of 19,250,000 won;

(c) on April 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 22, 2015, the Plaintiff, as the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “factory building of this case”), concluded a lease contract with the Defendant for a deposit of KRW 44 million, monthly rent of KRW 3850,000 (including value-added tax), and the lease term of April 1, 2015 to August 1, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and leased the instant factory building to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant was paid from September 1, 2015 as the tea under the instant lease agreement.

C. Since May 1, 2016, the Defendant was in arrears, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on August 31, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, since the instant lease contract was terminated as the Defendant’s delinquency in payment, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant factory building to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff the amount of 19,250,000 won in arrears and the amount of 19,250,000 won in arrears for five months from May 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016 (=3,850,000 won x 5 months), and to return unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of 3,850,000 won in excess of the rent from October 1, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant factory building.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the Defendant set up a string of the instant factory building and deducted the costs from the rent. Since the Defendant spent KRW 14,00,000 for the above installation costs around June 2014, the Defendant asserted that the rent unpaid until September 30, 2016, deducted the above KRW 14,00,000 from KRW 19,250,000, and the lease deposit amount was KRW 50,000,000, the Plaintiff’s claim is unjust.

The plaintiff and the defendant bear 14 million won out of the purchase price of Hoststrstrstrstrstrstrstrstrstrrstrstrst, and the lease contract of this case is terminated upon considering the purport of the whole argument in Gap evidence No. 11.