1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Each point of Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of Annex 1 concerning land in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Yangyang-gu.

1. The facts of recognition do not set the deadline from the Plaintiff’s father D, and the Defendant leased the part of “B” indicating “B” (hereinafter “instant land”) among the land of “Yyang-gu, Soyang-gu, Soyang-gu,” on the rent of KRW 3 million per annum (payment in advance on January of each year), and uses the building as a household building on the part “A” indicating the drawing of attached Table 1.

In addition, after D's death, the Plaintiff received inheritance of the land of "Yyangyang-gu, Soyang-gu C", and the Plaintiff's agent mother notified the termination of the lease contract on April 10, 2017.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. On October 10, 2017, upon the Plaintiff’s notice of termination of the lease agreement on the instant land, which became effective on October 10, 2017 due to the Plaintiff’s obligation to remove the building and pay unfair gains equivalent to rent, the Defendant is obliged to remove the part of the “A” structure indicated in attached Form 1 and deliver the instant land.

In addition, the Defendant does not clearly dispute the fact that the unpaid vehicle from June 2017 to June 1, 2017 is 1.250,000 won. As such, the Defendant has to return to the Plaintiff the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of 1.250,000 won per month from July 1, 2017 to the delivery of the instant land.

B. The defendant asserts to the effect that the judgment on the simultaneous performance defense of the defendant would deliver the land of this case at the same time with the return of 20 million won of the lease deposit paid to D.

However, the evidence No. 1 stating the lease deposit cannot be used as evidence to support the defendant's assertion because there is no evidence to prove the establishment of the petition deposit, and it is not acceptable to accept this assertion because there is no evidence to deem that the defendant paid 20 million won of the lease deposit.