1. From August 17, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of real estate stated in the attached Form 4,730, among the KRW 41,728,000 from the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall be from August 17, 2017.

On March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the real estate stated in the order (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 50 million, KRW 4.73 million per month, and the period from April 17, 2017 to April 16, 2019 (hereinafter “instant contract”); the Defendant paid only the rent from April 17, 2017 to August 16, 2017, and delayed payment of the rent thereafter; the Defendant’s management fee from August 2017 to December 2017, which was not paid by the Defendant, did not conflict between the parties; and the Plaintiff’s duplicate of the complaint from January 15, 2018 to the effect that the instant contract is terminated on the grounds of more than three years of rent, and it is apparent that the copy of the complaint from January 15, 2018 was terminated due to the Defendant’s termination of the instant contract.

Therefore, as above, the Defendant is obliged to receive from the Plaintiff the remainder of the deposit amounting to KRW 41,728,00 (i.e., KRW 50,00,000 - KRW 8,272,00) from August 17, 2017 to the completion date of the delivery of the building of this case after deducting the amount of rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 4,730,00 per month from August 17, 2017, and at the same time to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff.

In regard to this, the Defendant appears to the purport that the Plaintiff did not perform the purpose of the instant building at the time of the instant contract, even though the Plaintiff had changed the purpose of the building into a neighborhood living facility, and thus could not operate the building because it did not obtain permission for business. Therefore, it seems that there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant was operating in the instant building until the date of the closing of argument, and therefore, it does not seem that there is a justifiable reason to refuse the payment of rent to the Defendant.

Furthermore, in full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff and the defendant are related to the installation of facilities and authorization necessary for the business purpose of the building of this case at the time of the contract of this case.