1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver 72.20 square meters of one floor among the buildings listed in the attached list;

B. 7,000,000 won and August 2019

On or around April 30, 2015, a lease contract was concluded between the original Defendant and the Plaintiff with respect to KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000 (payment on May 30, 200) regarding the leased object of this case (hereinafter “the lease contract of this case”) among the buildings listed in the separate sheet, which are owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the leased object of this case”), and around that time, the Plaintiff delivered the leased object of this case to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid the said lease deposit to the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff rent after May 1, 2017, and the fact that the possession of the leased object of this case as of the date of the closing of the argument of this case was nonexistent between the parties or recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entry in Gap evidence No. 1.

Therefore, the instant lease agreement was terminated on October 7, 2019, when the copy of the complaint of this case, which is the purport that the Defendant’s termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the overdue delay, was delivered to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 1,00,000,000, after deducting the said lease deposit from the unpaid rent from May 1, 2017 to July 31, 2019 (=27,00,000 - 20,000,000) and from August 1, 2019 to the date when the delivery of the leased object is completed.

In light of the fact that the Defendant did not properly operate a car page on the leased object of this case due to the crossing prisoners of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s family members, and eventually continued to suspend the business and did not receive the premium for the use of a new lessee, etc., the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not err in paying the rent, but rather did not incur enormous damages due to the Plaintiff’s side, and thus, cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. However, there is evidence to acknowledge this.