1. From March 12, 2015 to the completion date of the name map of the real estate stated in the separate sheet from KRW 40,000 to KRW 40,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 1, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease contract with the term from March 12, 2010 to March 11, 2012, by setting the lease deposit of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 900,000, and the term of the contract for the building indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On February 1, 2010, the Defendant paid the lease deposit KRW 4,000,000, and KRW 36,000,000, respectively, on March 12, 2010.

C. The Defendant did not pay rent after March 2015, and on October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content verifying the content of the instant real estate by October 13, 2015 and by January 15, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the defendant did not pay more than twice the above facts. Thus, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated with the plaintiff's notice of termination. Thus, the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff to order the building of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s simultaneous performance defense, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the delivery of the instant building until the Plaintiff was returned the deposit for lease of the instant lease contract. Thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the deposit to the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, and the Plaintiff’s duty to even specify the instant building and the Plaintiff’s duty to return the deposit for lease is also related to the simultaneous performance.

C. The Plaintiff’s deduction of the unpaid rent from the Plaintiff’s re-claiming that the Defendant’s unpaid rent should be deducted. Thus, the Defendant did not pay the rent after March 12, 2015.