1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the third floor of 210.56 square meters of the real estate indicated in the attached sheet.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) The owner of the real estate indicated in the attached Form D, and D, E, April 13, 2016, the third floor of the above real estate (hereinafter “instant leased part”) is 210.56 square meters (hereinafter “instant leased part”).

A) The Defendant leased deposit amounting to KRW 30 million, monthly renting to KRW 2750,000, and the period from April 13, 2016 to April 12, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) On April 24, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased the real estate listed in the separate sheet from D and E and succeeded to the said lease agreement on the same day.

3) The Defendant did not pay the rent after April 12, 2018. On July 18, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the said lease was terminated on the grounds of the delinquency in payment of the rent for more than three years, and the above content certification reached the Defendant around that time. [Grounds for Recognition] The Defendant did not dispute, each of the entries (including a serial number, and the purport of the entire pleadings) in subparagraphs A and 4.

B. Since the instant lease agreement was terminated on July 18, 2018, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the leased portion to the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The monthly rent of the instant lease agreement is more than twice compared to other neighboring buildings.

The defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request for extradition before return of the unduly paid monthly rent from the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the monthly rent of the instant lease agreement is higher than that of other commercial buildings in the vicinity was not submitted at all. Even if the monthly rent of the said lease agreement was higher than that of the neighboring commercial buildings, there is no ground for the Defendant to claim the return of the rent that the Plaintiff paid during the lease agreement to the Plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.