1. The Defendant’s month from 18,50,000 to 200,000 to May 24, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the building indicated in the separate sheet.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On July 7, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) with a deposit of KRW 3,00,00,000 for the building as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”); from August 24, 2017 to August 23, 2019; and from rent of KRW 2,60,000 per month (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and the Defendant did not pay KRW 1,50,000 for the rent by April 23, 2019; and the Plaintiff’s delivery of the instant written complaint to the Defendant by delivery of the instant written complaint does not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3.

B. According to the above facts finding, the instant contract was terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the rent, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to receive the remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the amount of KRW 18.5 million, which is equivalent to the rent, from May 24, 2019 to the completion date of the delivery of the instant building, from the amount of KRW 1,8.5 million, the amount of the rent unpaid from the Plaintiff to KRW 1,1.5 million, and to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff at the same time, barring any special circumstance.

2. The defendant's assertion regarding the defendant's assertion that the beneficial cost for the facilities installed in the building of this case should be deducted from the unpaid rent. However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant invested expenses in order to increase the value of the building of this case, and according to the evidence above, Article 6 of the special agreement of this case can be acknowledged as the fact that the tenant agreed to restore the building installed by the necessity to its original state. Thus, the defendant waived his right to demand reimbursement against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.