1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

B. From February 20, 2018, 4,651,000 won and above.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on September 23, 2016 on the lease deposit of KRW 10,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 880,000, monthly rent of KRW 880,000, and the lease period of the lease from August 1, 2016 to July 31, 2018 (hereinafter "the lease agreement in this case"). Article 4 of the above lease agreement provides that the lessee may immediately terminate the lease agreement in cases where the lessee fails to pay rent more than twice continuously, and the defendant was notified of the termination of the lease agreement from September 2017 to April 2017, and the cancellation of the lease agreement by the plaintiff on September 19, 2018.

According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated by the plaintiff's notification of termination on the ground of the defendant's delay, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent of 4,651,00 won (880 won x 880,00 won x 880,00 won x 880,000 won x 880,00 won x the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case from February 20, 2018 to February 8, 2018, calculated by the ratio of the monthly rent of 880,000 won as requested by the plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because the defendant's judgment on the defendant's assertion gives serious living conditions due to the theft of retired employees, etc., but this does not constitute grounds for refusing

Therefore, the defendant's argument is not correct.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition.