1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. From 4,900,000 to 4th floor of the building indicated in the separate sheet from January 16, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 15, 2009, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the term of February 15, 2009, setting a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 850,000 (payment on February 15, 201), and from the delivery date of the lease term to February 15, 2010, and used and used the building as delivery.

B. After that, while the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant building by acquiring each share of the instant building from the said C, D, and E on June 25, 2013, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor status under the instant lease agreement as the previous owner.

C. The Defendant did not pay the rent from June 16, 2014, and paid part of the rent in arrears to the Plaintiff after the instant lawsuit was filed, and the total amount of the rent unpaid as of January 15, 2014 reaches KRW 5.1 million.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and on February 2, 2015, the duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Request for delivery of the instant building;

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement is deemed to have been terminated on February 2, 2015, on which the copy of the complaint of this case containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination was delivered to the Defendant for reasons of delinquency in rent for more than two years, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building as the performance of the duty to restore.

B. As to the determination of the defense, the Defendant asserts that the claim of this case by the Plaintiff is unfair, since the monthly rent is within the scope of KRW 10 million that the Defendant already paid to the Plaintiff, and this assertion by the Defendant is against the duty to guarantee the lease.