1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall indicate the attached drawings (1), (2), (3), (4), and (1) of the real estate listed in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 원고(변경전 상호: D주식회사)는 2002. 11. 27. 피고 B에게 별지 목록 기재 부동산 중 별지 도면 표시 ①, ②, ③, ④, ①의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ㈎부분 160㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 공장’이라 한다)을 임대하였고, 그때부터 피고 B은 위 공장을 인도받아 계속하여 점유, 사용하고 있다.

B. On January 13, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a new lease agreement with Defendant B with the terms of KRW 21,000,000 for the instant factory, monthly rent of KRW 2,200,00 for KRW 200 for monthly rent (excluding value-added tax) and the term of lease from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. Defendant B paid KRW 2,62,00 each month for monthly rent and management expenses including value-added tax by November 1, 2015 under the above lease agreement (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 220,200,000 for monthly rent of KRW 220,000 for management expenses of KRW 220,000 for monthly rent of KRW 222,000,000 for monthly rent, and hereinafter “monthly rent, etc.”), and the said payment is delayed from December 1, 2015.

On November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to Defendant B a content-certified mail to the effect that the Plaintiff would deliver the instant factory by December 31, 2015.

E. Meanwhile, Defendant C is a former lessee who borrowed part of the instant factory from Defendant B, and is in possession of the heading (2.5 tons) in the said factory.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the grounds of the Defendant B’s failure to pay more than two rents.

Therefore, Defendant B is obliged to restore the duty of restoration under the instant lease agreement, and Defendant C is subject to the Plaintiff’s claim for removal of interference based on the Plaintiff’s ownership.