1. From January 15, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the building indicated in the separate sheet from KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On April 9, 2012, the Plaintiff is a building indicated in the attached Form with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant leased object”).

(1) As to the term of the instant lease agreement, KRW 10,00,000 per deposit, KRW 500,00 per month of rent, and the term of the lease prescribed from May 15, 2012 to May 15, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) After the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on November 15, 2015 to reduce the rent to KRW 350,000 on the basis of the instant lease agreement.

3) Since then, as the Defendant did not pay the amount equivalent to KRW 1,400,000, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay of rent around May 2016. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the fact that the lease contract of this case was terminated on or around May 2016, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the leased object of this case to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff the unpaid rent of KRW 1,400,000 and the delay damages therefor, and the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 350,000 per month from June 15, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the leased object of this case, barring any special circumstance.

2. Judgment on the defense

A. The Defendant’s defense as to the claim for reimbursement of rent and unjust enrichment is proved to have fully repaid the rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by January 14, 2017. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense is reasonable, since there is no dispute between the parties to the payment of the rent and the rent for the said period and the Defendant’s repayment of both unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and the rent for the said period.

B. The judgment of the simultaneous performance defense against the request for extradition is the defense of simultaneous performance that the defendant cannot respond to the request for delivery until the plaintiff is returned the remainder after deducting the unpaid rent, etc. from the lease deposit.