1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

B. From April 1, 2015, above A

subsection (b).

1. In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments, the plaintiff, on August 30, 2013, leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") to the defendant on the following grounds: (a) KRW 7 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 770,000; and (c) lease period from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2015; (c) the building of this case was delivered to the defendant around that time; and (d) the defendant notified the defendant of the termination of the lease of this case on the grounds of overdue payment; and (e) the plaintiff, on the other hand, after the notification of the termination of the lease, may fully recognize the amount equivalent to the lease of this case to March 2, 2015.

According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated on the grounds of the defendant's delinquency in rent, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 70,000 per month from April 1, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case.

2. On April 20, 2015, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful since the Defendant paid all the overdue rent to the Plaintiff around April 20, 2015. However, even if the Defendant paid all the overdue rent to the Plaintiff after the termination of the instant lease agreement, it does not affect the validity of the said termination. Therefore, the Defendant’

3. The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons.