1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, 1, 2, 9, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.

1. The defendant does not dispute the basic facts or comprehensively takes account of the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including paper numbers). The defendant's order No. 1-A between the plaintiff on December 6, 2007.

After entering into a lease agreement to lease the real estate stated in the port (hereinafter “instant building”) with a deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 3080,000,000, and the deposit money to the Plaintiff for a two-year period, and thereafter possess it up to the day. The Defendant delayed payment from July 8, 2013, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the said lease was terminated on the ground that the payment of rent was delayed on at least two occasions on March 5, 2014.

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the Defendant could have been aware that at least two months have elapsed since it was the monthly rent stipulated in the above lease agreement, the above lease agreement was lawfully terminated at the time when the notice of termination was delivered to the Defendant on March 5, 2014, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the lease agreement (or at the latest, September 17, 2014, when the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served to the Defendant).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff upon its reinstatement, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 3080,000 per month from November 9, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the said building.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.