1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 34,735,973 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 9, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff, among the buildings listed in the attached list, leased to the Defendant the amount of KRW 40,000,00,000, monthly rent, KRW 4,800,000, and the lease period from November 30, 2014 to November 30, 2016, the Defendant paid the electric rental fee from November 30, 2016 to October 30, 2016, the portion of the ship, which was successively connected to each of the items in the attached list, including drawings indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, and 1,00 square meters on the part of the ship, which was successively connected with each of the items in the attached list, to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff terminated the lease contract with the Defendant on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, etc.

3) The sum of the unpaid monthly rent, electricity fee, and value-added tax as of May 31, 2018 is KRW 74,735,973. 【The entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 8, as of May 31, 2018, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 9, 2018 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the claim purport and the written application for change of the cause of the claim, which is the following day of June 1, 2018, which is the delivery of the purport of the claim and the written application for change of the cause of the claim, which is the sum of KRW 74,735,973 from the sum of the monthly rent, etc. unpaid to the Plaintiff KRW 40,00,000,000 (= KRW 74,735,973) and the amount of KRW 40,973).

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the monthly rent that was paid by the Defendant should be returned to the Plaintiff considering the fact that there was water leakage in the leased object of this case and the damages incurred therefrom, but there is no evidence to prove that there was water leakage in the leased object of this case. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant performed Kcas and office works, electrical construction of productivera, and transshipment construction on the leased object of this case, and the value of the leased object of this case.