1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

B. From January 2, 2017, the above-mentioned A

subsection (b).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 1, 2006, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000,000,000 for the lease deposit, monthly rent of KRW 1.3 million, and the lease period from March 1, 2016 to March 1, 2007.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

After that, the monthly rent of the instant lease agreement was increased to KRW 1.6 million.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the monthly rent on June 2016 and July 2016, and paid only KRW 1,300,000 per month from August 2016 to November 2016, the Defendant recognized the fact that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease contract on the ground of the Defendant’s delayed delay as a preparatory document dated December 20, 2016. The fact that the said preparatory document was served on the Defendant on December 21, 2016 is apparent in the record. As such, the instant lease was lawfully terminated and terminated in accordance with the Plaintiff’s termination notice.

(1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease contract has been terminated due to the expiration of the period and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease contract has been terminated based on the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination intention on the ground of the expiration of the period of termination, and as long as this court judges that the lease contract has been terminated due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, it shall not be determined as to whether the term of termination has expired or not). Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant delivers the instant store to the Plaintiff, and from January 2, 2017 (the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff the rent KRW 6 million from June 29, 2016 to December 2016, 2016, as seen below, and the Plaintiff’s claim was reduced) is obligated to return unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 1.6 million, which is equivalent to the monthly rent until the expiration of the delivery of the instant store.