1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the real estate listed in Appendix 1, each point of Annex 2, Annex 1, Annex 4, 5, 6, 1.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff: (a) on June 30, 2014, determined and leased the store listed in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant store”) as KRW 7 million and KRW 550,000 per month (payment on April 30, 201) to the Defendant on June 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease”); (b) the Defendant paid the rent for April 2017 and did not pay the Plaintiff the rent; (c) the Defendant is currently using the instant store; and (d) the fact that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease was terminated on the grounds of the rent delay as the instant complaint, and that the notification reached the Defendant on June 15, 2018 is apparent in the record.

According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay of rent, barring any special circumstances, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the overdue interest calculated at the rate of KRW 50,000 per month from May 1, 2017, the following day after the last rent payment date until the delivery date of the instant store, or return unjust enrichment.

B. As to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that it was impossible to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim due to the failure to receive the premium, but the Plaintiff agreed to pay the premium to the Defendant only by the evidence

It is insufficient to recognize that the opportunity to recover premiums was unfairly deprived, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by admitting the plaintiff's claim on the ground that it is reasonable.