1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff all the first floor of the building indicated in the attached list, as from April 11, 2015.

1. On January 10, 2013, the Plaintiff leased all the first floor among the buildings listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 750,000,000, and the period of January 20, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease”).

The defendant was operating C Child Care Center in the building of this case and 2015

3. 31. The operation of a child-care center was discontinued, but the facility or equipment for the operation of a child-care center remains as they remain.

Meanwhile, the Defendant did not pay a total of KRW 1.5 million in the year 2013, KRW 7.5 million in the year 2014, and KRW 2.75 million in the amount of rent until April 10, 2015.

As stipulated in the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds that at least two occasions the Plaintiff failed to pay rent, by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] A1 to 5, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the absence of dispute, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated due to the reasons attributable to the Defendant.

I would like to say.

2. The Defendant asserts that, before January 10, 2013, prior to the conclusion of the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff, the aforementioned child-care center was not occupied or used, and the remaining security deposit should be returned after deducting the overdue rent, as the Defendant entered into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff and the instant agreement that “if the representative of the child-care center is not changed, the contract shall be null and void if it is impossible to change the representative of the child-care center,” and that the said child-care center was delivered to D on March 31, 2015, since the Defendant did not occupy or use the instant building and the instant building should be returned.

It is true that the contract of this case contains a special agreement asserted by the defendant, or in light of the nature of the lease contract for the purpose of continuous possession and use.