1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff each building listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on January 15, 2015, stipulating that each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) as indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff shall be KRW 10 million, KRW 2 million, KRW 2 million, and the lease period from January 26, 2015 to January 25, 2017, and delivered the instant building to the Defendant. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff rent, and the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff rent thereafter, and it can be recognized that the copy of the complaint of this case, stating the content of the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery, was delivered to the Defendant.

According to the above facts, since the above lease contract was terminated by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff by reinstatement.

2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is alleged to the effect that the rent in arrears was appropriated as the deposit that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant’s argument is difficult to accept on the ground that the lessee is guaranteed all the lessee’s obligation arising from the lease relationship, such as the overdue rent, etc. paid to the lessor at the time of concluding the lease contract, and the lessee cannot refuse to pay the rent or be exempted from liability for nonperformance due to the overdue payment on the ground that the deposit exists (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da4417, Sept. 9

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.