1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Among the buildings listed in the attached Form, each point is indicated in the attached Form 1, (2), (7), (8), and (1);

1. Facts recognized;

A. On March 25, 2014, the Plaintiff is the co-owner of the building listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”). On March 25, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to the Defendant by determining the deposit amounting to KRW 50 million, KRW 3.6 million per month, management expenses (excluding value-added tax), KRW 232,90 per month, management expenses (excluding value-added tax), KRW 50,00 per month, and period from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2016.

B. On March 24, 2016, the Defendant did not pay more than three occasions, and the copy of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent reaches the Defendant on March 24, 2016.

C. Around May 23, 2016, the other co-owners of the instant building, B, C, and D transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant thereof.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5-1 to 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated and terminated. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 4,216,190 per month that the Plaintiff seeks within the limit of KRW 4,271,190 per month from August 25, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

B. On July 10, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for corporate rehabilitation with the Seoul Central District Court 2015 Gohap100208, and rendered a preservative measure and comprehensive injunction on July 15, 2015, the decision of commencing rehabilitation proceedings on July 29, 2015, the decision of commencing rehabilitation proceedings on December 2015, and the decision of approving the rehabilitation plan on December 2, 2015. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case should be exercised through rehabilitation procedures, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unreasonable. However, the above rehabilitation procedure was terminated on June 23, 2016, and the Plaintiff is above.