1. The Defendant delivers to the Plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list, and from July 2, 2019, KRW 1,580,000 and its amount.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on December 31, 2016, setting a monthly rent of KRW 280,000 from January 13, 2017 to January 12, 2018, with regard to the real estate stated in the separate sheet with the defendant as a deposit of KRW 1,00,000, a monthly rent of KRW 280,000. After that, during the renewal of the lease agreement, the plaintiff sent to the defendant a document proving that the lease agreement was terminated on April 27, 2019 on the ground of the defendant's monthly rent and unpaid payment during the renewal of the lease agreement, and thereafter, deliver it to the defendant around that time. Accordingly, the defendant can be acknowledged as follows:

According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated at the end of April 2019 due to the plaintiff's declaration of termination while the lease contract of this case is renewed and continued, and immediately thereafter, the defendant can be recognized as not making use of and benefit from the real estate of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,580,000 won with the interest calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from July 2, 2019 to the day of full payment, which is the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, to the day after the termination of the lease.

Meanwhile, the part seeking payment of KRW 280,000 per month from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff to the day of order is seen above. As seen above, the Defendant appears to have moved from the leased object to his own state after the termination of the lease contract of this case, and further, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant continuously occupied and used and used the leased object and profits therefrom,

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is partially accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit.