1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) An indication of Attached Map 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, among the first floor of the real estate moving to the real estate indicated in the Attached List.

Facts of recognition

On August 30, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the building listed in the attached list due to sale.

On November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff successively connected each point of (A) section 1,321 square meters in the attached drawing among the 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 1st among the 2nd floors of the Defendant and the said building, and the said 1,31.9 square meters in the part (B) in the ship connecting each point of (a) the 1,2,321 square meters in the attached drawing among the 2nd floors, and the 331.9 square meters in the attached drawing (hereinafter “factory of this case”) among the 1st,2,3,321 square meters in the same 1,321 square meters in the order, and the Defendant made an agreement to pay the deposit in advance from December 10, 2014 to December 9, 2016 (hereinafter “the lease agreement”). The Defendant concluded the lease agreement to pay the deposit in advance by December 23, 2015.

The defendant paid 34,500,000 won for the above three-month rent to the plaintiff, and used the factory for delivery of the factory of this case, but did not pay the bond even after the agreed date.

Accordingly, on March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the contract on the grounds of the unpaid deposit, etc. and sent the above notification to the Defendant at that time.

Then, the Defendant, while occupying and using the instant factory even until the date of the closing of argument, paid to the Plaintiff until September 2015, while having occupied and used the instant factory.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the lease agreement of this case was legally terminated by the plaintiff’s expression of intent in accordance with the defendant’s breach of contract. Since the defendant gains profit equivalent to rent and damage equivalent to the plaintiff's amount without any legal ground by using and making profits from the factory of this case owned by the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to order the factory of this case.