1. The Defendant shall issue to the Plaintiff the second floor among the real estate in the attached list, and shall attach from December 10, 2018, the amount of KRW 900,000 and the amount of KRW 10.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 19, 2018, the Plaintiff leased the two-story 27 square meters (72.45 square meters in size on the register; hereinafter “instant office”) among the real estate in the attached list to the Defendant as the lease deposit amount of KRW 3,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000 (prepaid on April 10), and the lease term of KRW 300,000 (prepaid on April 20, 2018) from April 20, 2018 to May 9, 2019 (However, rent shall be paid from May 10, 2018).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Around June 2018, the instant office verified that the instant lease agreement was terminated due to water leakage on September 4, 2018, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff as of September 4, 2018.

Although the defendant did not pay rent after September 2018, the defendant continued to possess the office of this case, and did not leave the office until the date of the closing of argument in this case.

C. On November 15, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate to the effect that “the Defendant would terminate the instant lease contract if he/she did not pay the overdue charge by December 10, 2018.” On December 6, 2018 and December 13, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate to the effect that “the Defendant would terminate the instant lease contract with the Defendant’s payment of overdue charge for at least three (3) years, and to request the Defendant to deliver the instant office.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract on December 2018.

Therefore, the defendant delivered the office of this case to the plaintiff, and the defendant moved out of the office of this case on May 7, 2019, which was after the closing of the argument of this case, but failed to return the key due to the plaintiff's refusal to receive it, and the plaintiff asserted that the defendant did not return the key. The above circumstances are all after the closing of argument of this case, and therefore, they are considered to be reflected in the judgment of this case.