1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Each delivery of 658.05 square meters per floor and 658.05 square meters per second floor, among the real estate listed in the attached list, shall be made.

On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) with respect to KRW 100 million, KRW 100,000,000,000 for the lease deposit, KRW 13.2 million for the rent, and KRW 100,000 for the rent (including additional value-added tax), from August 5, 2015 to August 4, 2020 for the lease term (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and thereafter, delivered the instant lease object to the Defendant from May 1, 2018, but the fact that the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent from May 1, 2018 to the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties.

According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated on November 29, 2018, on which the copy of the complaint of this case was delivered to the defendant, stating the plaintiff's declaration of termination on the ground of delinquency in payment of rent for at least three years.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the leased object of this case to the Plaintiff, and pay the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 13.2 million per month from January 5, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the leased object of this case, which the Plaintiff seeks.

As to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff purchased the books, carp, etc. installed on the leased object of this case or returned unjust enrichment equivalent to the value thereof. As such, the Defendant first arranged the above claim as the right to purchase the attached object.

Even if the lease contract is terminated due to the lessee’s default, such as the lessee’s delay of rent, the right to purchase the attached property cannot be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7245, 7252, Jan. 23, 1990).

Even if the expenses claimed by the defendant are not spent for the purpose of the defendant's subjective interest or specific business, the object of lease itself is not objective.