1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the 8th floor No. 801, 244.48 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached list.

2. The defendant 7.7.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4:

On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract, and the store delivery Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,00,000,000 for each of the eight-story 801 and 244.48 square meters for each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) and the lease term of KRW 3,00,000 for each of the leased buildings (payment on March 15, 2013, separate value added tax), from March 15, 2013 to March 14, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). At that time, the Defendant delivered the instant store to the Defendant.

B. Although the Defendant, which was unpaid, occupies the instant store, the Defendant did not pay the rent after October 15, 2013.

C. On December 24, 2014, a copy of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the said lease on the grounds of the delinquency in rent of at least two years for which the declaration of intention to terminate the lease was delivered to the Defendant.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease contract was terminated due to the delay in rent for at least two years. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and to return the unpaid rent of KRW 3,000,000 from October 14, 2014 to the delivery of the instant store.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not supply the electricity, gas, and water to the instant store after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, and that the Plaintiff could not use and benefit from the instant store for its original purpose because it obstructed installation of artificial park facilities, etc., and thus, the Defendant asserted that the termination of the lease agreement on the ground of the delinquency in rent cannot be accepted, and that there was no obligation to return rent or unjust enrichment.

3. Determination as to the request for delivery of the store of this case

A. Prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, it is based on the facts as seen earlier.