1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 9,650,090 won and September 4, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to lease the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant at KRW 800,000 per month (hereinafter “instant lease”) and to pay the electricity and water rate for each household, and the purification tank cleaning costs to pay KRW 50,000 per annum.

B. Around November 2014, the Plaintiff decided to reduce the monthly rent from KRW 800,00 to KRW 750,000, which is the monthly rent from November 2014, and the said lease has been renewed with the same content.

C. The Defendant has not paid the tea since it paid the tea to September 30, 2016, and has not paid the fare of 1,200,090 won from November 1, 2014 to August 31, 2017, and 200,000 won for cleaning septic tanks from 2014 to 2017 (=50,000 won x4 years).

The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case on September 1, 2017. The copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant on September 1, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated on September 1, 2017 on the ground of the Defendant’s car disposal, and as such, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 750,00 per month from September 4, 2017 to September 1, 2017, in total, KRW 9,650,090 (i.e., the rent of KRW 8,250,000 from October to August 2017) and KRW 1,200,000,000, as the Plaintiff seeks, from September 4, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant should pay the repair cost of KRW 790,00,00 as he damaged the interior facilities of the real estate of this case, but the statement in Gap evidence 5 alone is equivalent to the above amount.