The defendant shall be from June 1, 2020 to June 1, 2020 to June 200.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 10, 2019, the Plaintiff, the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, under which the Plaintiff entered into between the Defendant and the Defendant, with the terms that the instant building is leased KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.45 million (payment on the first day of each month), and the period from August 1, 2019 to July 31, 2021 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff received the deposit of KRW 20 million from the Defendant, and the Defendant occupied and used the instant apartment from August 1, 2019, when the date of commencement of the instant lease agreement.

(c)

The Defendant did not pay the monthly rent under the instant lease agreement from November 1, 2019.

Accordingly, around February 10, 2020, the Plaintiff concluded that the Defendant terminated the instant lease agreement by holding the Defendant a four-year tea.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated around February 10, 2020 by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on the ground of overdue payment for more than two years of the Defendant.

Therefore, as requested by the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to receive the money calculated at the rate of KRW 985 million from the plaintiff (the amount calculated by deducting the unpaid rent from KRW 20 million to May 31, 2020) to KRW 1450,000,000 from June 1, 200 to May 31, 2020, and the remaining money after deducting the management expenses, electricity charges, and public charges for the instant real estate from the monthly rent from June 1, 200 to the completion date of the delivery of the instant apartment, and simultaneously deliver the instant apartment to the plaintiff.

Although the defendant asserts that he wishes to continue to reside after paying the monthly rent, the defendant cannot prevent the plaintiff's request for extradition on the sole ground as alleged by the defendant. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable.