1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list, and KRW 300,000 per month from February 1, 2017 to the delivery date.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) is real estate owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s agent, allowed Nonparty C to manage, use, and benefit from the instant officetel.

B. On February 1, 2017, C leased the instant officetel as KRW 3 million, monthly rent, and KRW 300,000,000 to the Defendant. On February 1, 2017, C was transferred to the instant officetel and occupied and used the instant officetel until the date of closing argument.

C. After February 1, 2017, the Defendant did not pay the monthly rent and did not pay the monthly rent at least once, and the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to settle the accounts of the smuggling monthly rent and deliver the instant officetel on June 16, 2017 under the premise that the lease is terminated due to the delayed payment of monthly rent by mail verifying the content.

The defendant only settled the management expenses on July 3, 2017 and did not pay the management expenses even after the settlement of the management expenses.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant officetel is terminated on June 16, 2017 when the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination was delivered to the Defendant on the grounds of delay in monthly rent by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant officetel to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to KRW 300,000 per month, which is the monthly rent from February 1, 2017 to delivery.

The defendant asserts that the non-party A is the owner and entered into a lease contract, and that the lease contract has no effect because the plaintiff did not comply with the request to modify the contract.

However, even according to the defendant's assertion itself, the defendant does not have the right to possess and use the instant officetel despite the plaintiff's request for extradition, which is the owner, and the defendant demanded the change of the contract as alleged.