1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 6, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million to the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant marina”), the lease term of KRW 60 months from March 6, 2015, the 20th day of each month from March 6, 2015, and the rent of KRW 20 million from March 6, 2015, and the rent of KRW 20,000 from the commencement of the business, and the rent of the place of business, when the place of business has

B. The Defendant received the instant marina in accordance with the said lease agreement and commenced business on May 1, 2015, but did not pay the Plaintiff a car.

C. At the time of the above lease, the lessor determined that the contract may be terminated if the lessee fails to pay monthly rent more than twice.

(Article 6. [Reasons for Recognition] A of the absence of dispute, entry of evidence A of subparagraphs 1 through 6 of the lease contract, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Defendant’s obligation to pay the rent under the instant lease agreement was in arrears not less than twice is shown above, and the fact that the copy of the complaint submitted by the Plaintiff stating the termination of the instant lease agreement reaches the Defendant on October 4, 2016 is apparent. Thus, the instant lease agreement was terminated at that time.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant marina to the plaintiff by restoring it to its original state.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff agreed to reduce the rent by not delivering a part of the store that the Plaintiff agreed to deliver at the time of the instant lease agreement, but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone that the Plaintiff did not deliver a part of the store.

It is insufficient to recognize that the rent has been reduced or has been reduced due to it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Furthermore, the defendant's rent is due to a special contract at the time of the conclusion of the lease contract and the rent is due to the occurrence of disputes.