1. The remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the part concerning C-related monetary claims, shall be added in the trial.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's request for delivery of the building

A. On March 11, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim that the room of the instant case owned by the Plaintiff is to be leased to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit of KRW 15,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 240,000, management fee of KRW 20,000, excursion ship fee of KRW 8,800, term of lease, and period of lease from April 2, 2011 to April 1, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The fact that the Plaintiff delivered the room of the instant case to the Defendant is either a dispute between the parties or can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraphs 1 through 5.

According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case terminated on April 1, 2012, and thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the studio of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. On April 20, 2012, the Defendant, even if the Defendant has yet to possess the key, left the room of this case on April 20, 2012, and on May 10, 2012, the Plaintiff replaced the general key and auxiliary key attached to the studio of this case at the time of the enforcement of the provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession and possession of the studio of this case. The Plaintiff and the Defendant sent the key to the Defendant on June 30, 2012, under which they agreed to exchange the key and the deposit with each other on behalf of their respective agents, and the key could not be reduced due to the Plaintiff’s failure to do so. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should be deemed to have delivered the studio of this case to the Plaintiff.

According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 15, 22, 29, 45, 46, and 63 of this case, the Defendant left the studio of this case on April 3, 2012 after completing the lease registration with respect to the building to which the studio of this case belongs. The Defendant attempted to return the key to the Plaintiff at the time of leaving the studio of this case, but failed to return the key because the Plaintiff did not meet the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not return the key to the Defendant.