1. The defendant from June 1, 2019 to 20 million won from the plaintiff to June 1, 2019

1. Attached Form among buildings entered in the list;

2. Drawings.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff attached Form to the Defendant on May 18, 2014

1. From May 18, 2014 to May 18, 2019, a lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,300,000, and a period of KRW 1,30,000, among the buildings indicated in the list, the part indicated in paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter “instant building part”) was leased, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On April 2, 2019, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant his/her intent to refuse renewal by content-certified mail.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact of recognition, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to deliver the Plaintiff the part of the instant building, at the same time, with the remainder of money obtained from the Plaintiff after deducting the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 1,300,000 per month from June 1, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the part of the instant building, from the amount of KRW 20,000 to KRW 1,30,000,000, from the lease deposit to

As to this, the Defendant asserted that the term of the instant lease was substantially commenced from September 4, 2014, and that prior to September 4, 2019, the five years thereafter, the Defendant could not respond to the Plaintiff’s request because it was renewed under the same conditions as the previous one by demanding the renewal of the contract to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant again agreed to extend the term of the instant lease to five years from September 4, 2014.

B. The Defendant did not have any evidence to deem that the Plaintiff requested renewal of the instant lease agreement between six months and one month prior to the expiration date of the instant lease agreement (i.e., the period between November 18, 2018 and April 17, 2019) and six months prior to the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant did not accept the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise.

In addition, the defendant, around December 2015, intends to further lease the building portion of this case to a third party on the condition that it is better than the defendant.