1. The Defendant’s month from KRW 50,00,000 to KRW 50,00,000 from the Plaintiff to the completion date of the delivery of real estate as indicated in the separate sheet from December 1, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant commercial building”) with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,850,00 (including value-added tax) and the lease agreement with the period from June 23, 2012 to June 22, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”) and agreed that the Plaintiff may immediately terminate the instant agreement if the Defendant fails to pay rent more than twice.

B. From June 1, 2014, the Defendant delayed the payment of monthly rent.

C. On August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that contains an expression of intent to terminate the instant contract.

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

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant contract was terminated on August 18, 2014, as the Defendant delayed the payment of monthly rent at least twice and expressed the Plaintiff’s intention of termination.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was paid after the instant lawsuit was filed until November 2014. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 3,850,000 from December 1, 2014 to the date of completion of the instant commercial building delivery.

3. As to the judgment on the defendant's simultaneous performance defense, the defendant shall receive 50,00,000 won of the deposit for lease at the same time. Since the defendant paid 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff at the time of the contract of this case, there is no dispute between the parties, and the fact that the contract of this case has been terminated is as seen earlier, the defendant's duty to deliver the commercial building of this case is in the simultaneous performance relation with the plaintiff's duty to return the deposit for lease.

I would like to say.

However, the lease deposit shall be the rent incurred in relation to the lease until the object is delivered after the termination of the lease.