1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the second floor of the building listed in the separate sheet, each point of the attached sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers) and all the arguments.

On July 1, 2002, the Plaintiff owned 16/18 shares among the buildings listed in the attached list. On the second floor of the above building, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the deposit deposit amount of KRW 2,200,000 and KRW 572,00 (including value-added tax) in the part inside the ship (hereinafter referred to as “210”) which connects each point of subparagraph 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached drawings among the second floor of the above building; and (b) determined the lease deposit amount of KRW 2,200,00 and KRW 572,00 in the monthly rent of KRW 5,6,7,8,8,9,10,000 in sequence among the parts inside the ship (hereinafter referred to as “203”) which connect each point of subparagraph 39m2 (hereinafter referred to as “2,50,000, monthly rent of KRW 528,000 (including value-added tax) and lease period of each one year.

(hereinafter referred to as “each lease of this case”) B.

From June 2005, the Defendant did not pay the rent of each of the instant lease, and the Plaintiff terminated the said lease by serving a copy of the instant complaint on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay of rent.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of recognition of the claim for India Nos. 203 and 210, each of the instant leases is implicitly renewed every one year after the conclusion of the first contract on July 1, 2002, and is terminated on July 25, 2016, when the copy of the complaint was served on the Defendant on the grounds of the termination by the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case by the Plaintiff on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay of rent, the Defendant, a lessor, bears the duty to deliver 203 and 210, the leased object, to the Plaintiff as the lessor.

On the other hand, the defendant exempted the obligation to pay the rent from May 2005 to the appraisal of redevelopment compensation, or suspended the obligation to pay the rent until the time of receiving the compensation. Thus, the defendant cannot be said to have a rent-free body, and therefore, on the ground of the rent-free body.