1. Among the first floor of the building listed in the attached list, the Defendant points out 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Defendant leased the fourth floor of the instant entire property from the Plaintiff.

B. On June 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) newly constructed about four warehouses on the first floor of the instant building and agreed to use approximately two parallels each of them; and (b) the main contents of the agreement are as follows.

1) At the request of the Defendant, a new warehouse is built. 2) Existing warehouse is completely removed and its cost and responsibility is newly constructed.

3) After the vehicle, the Defendant is responsible for and does not transfer the liability and expenses to the Plaintiff when the removal order is issued after being determined as an illegal building by the government office. Accordingly, the Defendant newly constructed about four warehouses on the first floor of the instant building, and thereafter thereafter, from that time, up to that time the attached drawing indication 1, 2, c, div, and 1 each point of the attached drawing indication 1, 2, 3, 44 and 6.27 square meters (hereinafter “the instant section”).

D. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant prepared and delivered a letter of undertaking to deliver the instant part to the Plaintiff by October 30, 2014. E. The Plaintiff demanded delivery of the instant part on November 3, 2014, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he would deliver the said part of the instant part by November 30, 2014. [In the absence of any grounds for recognition, there are no grounds for dispute, the entries in subparagraphs A and 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the part of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff had no choice but to have the obligation to return the lease deposit without preparing the above declaration, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

The defendant is unable to comply with the plaintiff's claim until he is paid the indemnity for new construction costs of warehouse and the indemnity for damage.