1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. To deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet, and to be listed in the separate sheet from June 1, 2016.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4:

On March 29, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the lease term of KRW 17,00,000,000 per month, and KRW 7,000,000 per rent (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) by May 30, 2016, for the purpose of restaurant, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Plaintiff in installments in addition to the rent.

B. After the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff newly constructed a new building as an object of the existing building and delivered it to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Defendant is operating a restaurant in the instant building by not later than the date of closing argument.

C. On September 4, 2015, the Defendant did not pay all the construction cost that the Plaintiff agreed to pay to the Plaintiff under the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff served with the Defendant a certificate of the purport that the instant lease agreement will be terminated on the grounds of the said payment of construction cost, and the above content certification reached the Defendant around that time.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the Defendant settled the amount of KRW 43 million out of the instant building, which was incurred by the Plaintiff as a new construction cost, and the Defendant prepared a loan certificate to the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Defendant financed KRW 43 million from the Plaintiff.”

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement is non-performance of the Defendant who violated the special terms and conditions under the instant lease agreement, barring any other special circumstances.