1. The defendant delivers the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff, and the building indicated in the attached list from June 21, 2018 to June 21, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 21, 2018, the Defendant leased a building listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant house”) from the Plaintiff as “the deposit: KRW 2 million, monthly rent: KRW 250,000, and the lease period: From May 21, 2018 to May 21, 2019” and determined as “from May 21, 2018 to May 21, 2019.”

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

From June 21, 2018, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent under the instant lease agreement.

C. On March 12, 2019, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written peremptory notice of termination of the instant lease agreement containing the purport that the instant lease agreement will be terminated, which reaches the Defendant around that time.

On the other hand, since May 2018, the Defendant did not pay the electricity and water rates of the instant housing, and the Plaintiff paid the total of KRW 289,030 and KRW 83,760 on behalf of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the determination on the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated around March 12, 2019.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff, and pay KRW 372,790, such as electricity charges paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, and ③ to pay rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to rent or rent, calculated by the ratio of KRW 250,000 per month from June 21, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant house.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted to the effect that, although there were defects such as water leakage and boiler malfunction in the instant house, the Plaintiff did not repair it, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff removed the warehouse of the house of this case and caused the defendant's material, equipment, joint board, etc. to be unusable, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is all.