1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. From October 10, 2014, buildings above.

1. In addition to the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff entered into a lease contract (hereinafter referred to as "the lease contract of this case") with the defendant on August 9, 2013 with respect to the building entered in the order owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the object of this case"), KRW 10 million per month, KRW 50,000 per month, management expenses, and August 20, 2013 to August 19, 2014. The lease contract of this case between the defendant and KRW 10,000,000,000 per month, and KRW 50,000 per month, and KRW 10,000,000 per month, and KRW 10,000,000,000 per month from August 10, 2014, the defendant can lawfully pay the above lease contract of this case to the defendant for the reasons that the lease contract of this case was terminated by 10,515,0000.

2. As to this, the defendant asserts that pursuant to Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the plaintiff should not seek delivery of the leased object of this case from a new lessee until the new lessee receives the premium.

According to Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, a lessor shall not interfere with receiving premiums from a person who wishes to become a new lessee arranged by a lessee according to a premium contract by engaging in acts prescribed in the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) of the same Article from three months to the expiration of the lease term.