1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff one story of 115.77 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. On December 28, 2006, the Defendant entered into a contract with C on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 120 million, the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million from January 5, 2007 to January 4, 2009, and the rent monthly amounting to KRW 4.5 million, and entered into a contract on the lease of KRW 115.7 square meters on the first floor (hereinafter “instant building”).

After that, upon the death of C, the Defendant entered into a contract to lease the instant building with the Plaintiff on March 12, 2009, with the lease deposit of KRW 120 million, the lease deposit of KRW 4.5 million from January 5, 2009 to January 4, 2010, the lease term of KRW 4.5 million from January 5, 2009 to March 12, 2010, and the lease contract is renewed as of March 12, 2010, with the content of changing the rent of KRW 4.8 million from July 1, 2012 to KRW 4.78 million each month, and continue to occupy the instant building until now.

From December 2014, the Defendant began to pay the rent in arrears, and the sum of the rent in arrears at present exceeds KRW 120,000,000,000.

The Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant through the instant complaint that the lease contract is terminated on the grounds of the rent delay.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. If the annual rent of a lessee of a commercial building reaches the amount of three-year rent, the lessor may terminate the contract (Article 10-8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act). According to the above facts of recognition, the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the grounds of the delayed rent, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) The Defendant’s assertion was received KRW 70 million from the Defendant through a fraud-based D around December 2006, and the Defendant cannot comply with the claim for extradition of the instant case prior to the refund of the said premium.

The defendant's assertion.