1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the first floor of the building listed in the separate sheet, each point of the separate sheet indication 2, 3, 4, 5, and 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 25, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the part (a) of 3.05 square meters in the attached Form No. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 2 connected each point in sequence among the first floor of the building listed in the attached Table No. 1, which is owned by the Plaintiff, with respect to the leased building (hereinafter “instant leased building”), the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) by determining from July 25, 2015 to April 30, 2016 as the lease deposit amount of KRW 1 million, monthly rent of KRW 200,000, and the lease period of KRW 2,3,4,5, and 33.05 square meters.

B. The Defendant occupied and used the instant leased building by delivery from the Plaintiff, and did not pay the Plaintiff monthly rent from September 26, 2017 to September 26.

C. Accordingly, around December 26, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “The Plaintiff did not pay the rent for three-months, so that the Plaintiff could not deliver the instant leased building by the end of December 2017,” and the said certificate was served to the Defendant around that time.

[Evidence Evidence: Descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1 through 8 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated by being served on the Defendant with proof of the content that the Plaintiff would terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground of the rent delay, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant leased building to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff a rent or a rent equivalent to KRW 200,000 per month from October 1, 2017 to the date the delivery of the said leased building is completed.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant: (a) was unable to live in the leased building on the ground that the boiler of the leased building of this case entered the boiler due to a broken-out or bed away from the mouth; and (b) did not have any heating; and (c) neglected to accept it even without being aware of it by the Plaintiff; and (d) the Defendant was a monthly car.