1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the 492.44 square meters of the 2nd floor of the building indicated in the attached Form, each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 is indicated in the attached Form.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) leased a lease deposit of KRW 30 million for a lease deposit; (b) KRW 180,000 for a monthly rent; and (c) from August 31, 2014 to August 30, 2016 for a lease term of KRW 360,000 for a lease term of KRW 360,000 for a monthly rent; and (d) if a lessee fails to pay rent on more than two occasions, the lessor agreed to terminate the instant lease contract; and (e) at that time, the lessor handed over the instant building to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant paid monthly rent and management expenses to the Plaintiff until December 30, 2014, but thereafter, did not pay monthly rent, etc., and on April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in payment of monthly rent.

【Reasons for Recognition: Each entry in Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination due to the Defendant’s declaration of termination due to overdue delay, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the rent of this case calculated by the ratio of KRW 2,376,00 per month from December 31, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case ( KRW 1.8 million, KRW 36,000, KRW 3600) and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of this case.

B. The Defendant’s argument as to the Defendant’s assertion: (a) from March 2015, the Plaintiff had been engaged in remodeling construction on the entire building where the instant building was located from around 40 days to around 40 days; and (b) the Defendant failed to run its business accordingly; (c) the Plaintiff exempted the Plaintiff from being the monthly rent on March 2015; (d) however, in light of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 4 and 6, the Plaintiff’s respective images as set forth in the evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2 are alone.