1. The defendant

(a) The number of real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the entrustment of management and operation with the Daegu Metropolitan City on the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

B. On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for permission to use public property (hereinafter “instant contract”) with regard to the portion (A) size of 86.12 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant building”) connected in order to each point of the real estate 1 floor indicated in the attached Table with the Defendant among the real estate 1 floor indicated in the attached Table, with the Defendant, as the period from May 21, 2015 to December 31, 2017, with respect to the period of 32,47,280 square meters (including each month, 2,706,440 won, and value added tax). From that time, the Defendant has used and profited the instant building.

C. On November 30, 2016, the Defendant delayed the payment of KRW 34,337,305 in the aggregate of KRW 22,82,977 as of November 30, 2016, and KRW 1,365,358, and management expenses, and KRW 10,08,970, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant contract pursuant to Article 8 of the instant contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 3

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding that the instant contract was terminated on the grounds of delinquency in payment, such as the Defendant’s rent, etc., barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff in return to the original state, barring any special circumstance, and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 2,706,440 each month from December 1, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

B. The defendant's defense 1) The defendant's assertion of unfair contract is that the business in the building of this case is not well-grounded due to the number of neighboring stores, etc., and the contract of this case is unfair, and thus, the contract of this case is revoked (which is asserted as invalid)

Although it is alleged that the contract of this case cannot be deemed unfair solely on the ground of the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit. 2) The defendant's claim to purchase ground facilities.