1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Site and its ground buildings (use as a public notice source; hereinafter “instant building”) from June 26, 2015 to June 25, 2017, regarding the whole amount of deposit KRW 170 million and the period from June 26, 2015.

B. Around the expiration of the above lease term, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for delivery of the building of this case (2017 group 116898), and on November 16, 2017, the conciliation procedure of the instant case was concluded as follows.

By March 31, 2018, the Plaintiff received money from the Defendant deducting the unpaid public charges, etc. from the Defendant at KRW 179,000,000, and simultaneously delivers the instant building to the Defendant. If the Plaintiff fails to perform the said obligation, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the money calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per month from April 1, 2018 (Provided, That if the date of payment of money by the Defendant is earlier than March 31, 2018, the day immediately after the date of payment of money) to the date of completion of the name of the said real estate.

C. On April 2, 2018, the Defendant deposited the amount stipulated in the above conciliation protocol with the Plaintiff as the deposit recipient, and sought delivery of the instant building to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not deliver the said building. Accordingly, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement individually with the residents of the instant building, and thereafter, the Defendant manages the instant building from around that time until that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim, etc.

A. The plaintiff's assertion without confirming the identity of the plaintiff, the defendant operated the Institute of Public Notice in the building of this case and received a total of KRW 51,100,000 from the tenant of the Institute of Public Notice. This is a gain without any legal ground, and the defendant is the plaintiff's above KRW 51,10,000 and damages for delay.