The defendant is a building attached to the plaintiff among the buildings listed in the attached list 453.34 square meters and the buildings listed in the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around June 2012, the Plaintiff leased C with a monthly rent of KRW 2,00,000 and KRW 3,000,000 for three years from June 25, 2012, among the buildings listed in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiff as indicated in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiff, to C, and C operated the marina with the trade name “D Empt” from the said building.

B. C newly constructed and used a 78.4m2 neighborhood living facilities with the roof of the ground light, steel framed, etc., which connected each point of the building attached to the above building in sequence with each point of the building attached to the building during the lease period.

(a) and (b) buildings of this case are the buildings of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant buildings”).

C around April 2019, the instant building was sub-leased to the Defendant, and the name of the Dart’s business operator was also changed to the Defendant.

C. C did not pay the monthly rent for at least three months until July 25, 2019.

C and the Defendant made on July 10, 2019 a letter to the Plaintiff stating that the instant building will be delivered to the Plaintiff, a lessor, without any condition on June 25, 2020, the expiration date of the lease term.

E. On August 6, 2019, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract on the ground that C was in arrears with the monthly rent, and that C was arbitrarily sub-leased the instant building without the Plaintiff’s consent.

【Ground for Recognition: Evidence No. 1-6, Evidence No. 1-1-1, Evidence No. 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff's declaration of termination due to the expiration of the term or delinquency in payment of rent, the defendant is obligated to leave the building of this case.

B. On April 2019, the Defendant asserted that there was a legitimate title to possess the instant building since he/she lawfully leased the instant building from the Plaintiff, but it is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s assertion only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 through 6-3, and evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.