1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

B. From July 1, 2016, the amount of KRW 9,400,00 and KRW 9,400.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 6, 2014, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as the lease deposit amounting to KRW 10 million, KRW 800,000 per month of rent (including value-added tax, the last day of each month), and the period from February 20, 2014 to February 19, 2016.

B. Around that time, the Defendant did not delay KRW 9,400,000 out of the rent until June 30, 2016 while occupying and using the instant building under delivery.

C. The Plaintiff expressed in the instant complaint the Defendant’s intent to terminate the lease agreement on the grounds of the foregoing delinquency in rent, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served to the Defendant on July 14, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] Records of obvious facts, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the lease contract on the building of this case was lawfully terminated at the time of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and return it, and to pay the rent of KRW 9,400,000 for overdue rent and KRW 800,00 for the period from July 1, 2016 to the delivery date of the instant building, calculated at the rate of KRW 800,000 per month.

B. The defendant argued to the effect that the termination of the contract is impossible because the plaintiff agreed to receive the rent by deducting the rent from the rent deposit and the balance is remaining after deducting the overdue rent from the rent deposit, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of such an agreement.

(A) The Defendant paid the rent monthly to the Plaintiff according to the lease agreement, and returned the remainder after deducting the Plaintiff from the lease deposit that the Plaintiff was in arrears. However, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the rent and the obligation to pay the rent on the ground of the existence of the lease deposit is not exempted. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.