1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver each building listed in the separate sheet;

B. From June 1, 2016, each of the above buildings.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and the Plaintiff, stipulating that the instant commercial building owned by the Plaintiff is leased to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 60 million, monthly rent of KRW 30,520,00 (including value-added tax, and payment after August 31, 2014) and the period from August 31, 2014 to August 30, 2015.

B. Around that time, the Defendant paid the full deposit to the Plaintiff and occupied and used the instant commercial building upon delivery, and paid the remainder of KRW 25,60,000 among the rent (=3,520,000 won from August 31, 2014 to February 29, 2016) to be paid by February 29, 2016 (=37,700,000 won x 18 months).

C. On March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his/her intention to terminate the lease agreement on the ground of the delinquency in rent.

(The plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the lease contract may be terminated even if not less than 2 years of arrears are overdue at the time of conclusion of the lease contract.

After the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, the Defendant paid the amount equivalent to the rent from April 7, 2016 to May 31, 2016, by depositing the amount in the Plaintiff’s deposit account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff's notification of termination on the ground of the delinquency in rent, and the payment of the amount equivalent to the rent of the defendant thereafter does not affect the validity of termination.

Although the Defendant asserts that the termination of the lease agreement on the ground of overdue rent is unfair, since the payment of rent was deferred due to the risk of impossible recovery of deposit for lease due to the public sale of the commercial building in this case, the actual progress of the public sale procedure as alleged by the Defendant, the scheduled time of notification of the public sale procedure, the time of seizure and cancellation of the commercial building in this case.