1. The defendant is indicated in the annexed drawing among the buildings emitted from the title section of the real estate registration register.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. On March 1, 2012, the Plaintiff leased each part of the building (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building parts”) emitted from Disposition No. 1 to the Defendant as the monthly rent of 1.60,000 won without a lease deposit, there is no dispute between the parties, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the rent pursuant to the said lease contract after June 1, 2016. As long as the Plaintiff, upon filing the instant lawsuit, notified the Defendant of the intention to terminate the said lease on the ground of the Defendant’s repeated delinquency, the lease relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is bound to be deemed to have been lawfully terminated due to the Defendant’s repeated delinquency as above. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building parts to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the delayed rent or the amount equivalent to the rent from June 1, 2016 to the completion date of the instant building in return for each month, barring any special circumstance.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts as set forth in the attached Form No. 1, and argues to the effect that he cannot respond to each of the claims of the plaintiff before receiving compensation for the damages from the plaintiff. However, since the defendant still lacks evidence to support the fact of the claim for damages equivalent to the amount of expenses for storage against the plaintiff and its scope, it cannot be accepted.

2. According to the above conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking the fulfillment of each of the above obligations is legitimate, and thus, accept it as is.