1. From 32,030,000 won to 2,070 won each month from December 1, 2015 to the next real estate delivery completion date.

1. The Plaintiff, from May 1, 2010, leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) to the Defendant from May 1, 2010 to KRW 35 million, monthly rent of KRW 2970,000 (including the final increase and value added tax, but excluding the rent for the second floor, not the subject matter of the instant lawsuit, but the extended period) and five years (including the extended period). Around January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the fact that the instant store was occupied and used for the purpose of public restaurant “D” with its trade name, and the Defendant may recognize the fact that the instant store was occupied and used for the purpose of public restaurant “D” during the said period by means of each statement (including the number of partial subparagraph 5) in the evidence No. 1 to No. 4, and No. 5.

In light of such circumstances, the above lease was terminated on April 30, 2015, and the whole lease period, counting from the first lease, has elapsed five years, and the defendant may not demand renewal or extension of the contract against the lessor's will.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff on the grounds of termination of the lease, unless there are special circumstances.

2. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's claim until 300 million won is paid to the defendant. However, it is difficult to view that the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's claim in light of the above statement of No. 1 to No. 3 and each financial information council about No. 9 and the witness E (the previous lessee's transferor of the above store)'s testimony, as well as the statement of No. 1 and transactional concept of No. 35 million won.

However, in light of the nature of the deposit received by the Plaintiff based on the lease, 35 million won guarantees the Defendant’s obligation for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent accrued until the Defendant actually returns the store of this case even after the termination of the lease, and according to the statements in the evidence Nos. 6 and 7.