1. The defendant received KRW 5050,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, the building listed in the attached list is added to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 30, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C, the owner of the instant building, setting a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 450,000, and the period of KRW 10,000,000, and paid KRW 10,000,000 to C, and thereafter occupied the instant building upon delivery, and the said lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) has been implicitly renewed.

B. On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s future, and succeeded to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement.

C. On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his intention not to renew the instant lease agreement.

The Defendant, around October 3, 2016, went to the instant building, but did not deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and the rent that the Defendant did not pay until the director went to the Plaintiff is KRW 4.95 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff at the same time with the payment of KRW 5050,00 (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) from the plaintiff.

(A) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant should deduct the rent from the deposit to the date of delivery of the instant building. However, the Defendant’s failure to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff even after the directors went to the Plaintiff is considered to have been solely paid the deposit. As such, the Defendant’s failure to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff is deemed to have been to have

The defendant's assertion increases the objective value of the building by paying the cost of KRW 12 million in respect of the building of this case. Thus, the plaintiff shall reimburse the defendant with the beneficial cost of KRW 12 million.