1. The Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to order the building indicated in the attached list, and the above building from August 20, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a commercial lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and king-si C 101 (hereinafter “instant building”) with the terms that the lease deposit is KRW 20 million,000,000,000, monthly rent is KRW 1870,000 (including value-added tax) and the lease term is from September 20, 2016 to September 20, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Upon entering into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to exempt the first two-month portion from the monthly rent, and to pay damages for delay at 2.5% per month from November 20, 2016 to the 20th day of each month, where delay is delayed.

C. Since the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant did not pay the rent until now.

On August 20, 2017, unpaid rent is KRW 16,830,00,00, overdue management fee is KRW 1,063,043, and agreed delay damages are KRW 2,103,750.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim. According to each of the above facts, the Defendant did not pay more than two vehicles, and the Plaintiff expressed its intention to terminate the instant lease contract by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case. Thus, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to order the Plaintiff to issue the instant building and return the unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 1,870,000 per month, an amount equivalent to the rent, from August 20, 2017 to the delivery date of the instant building, as sought by the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the defendant was subjected to deception by Nonparty D, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is groundless.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.