1. The defendant delivers the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff, and from December 20, 2013 to the delivery date of the above building.

1. As to the cause of claim

A. On January 20, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant on or after January 20, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease”) with a deposit of KRW 70 million, KRW 4070,00 per month (including value-added tax), and the period from January 20, 2012 to two years (hereinafter “instant lease”). The Defendant delayed payment after May 20, 2013, and the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant lease and filed the instant lawsuit on or after October 22, 2013. After that, the Defendant transferred the instant lease amount of KRW 2,849,00 (hereinafter “the instant lease”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff’s termination of the lease of this case is lawful, and the lease of this case terminated around October 2013 upon receipt of the notice of termination (i.e., the termination of the lease of this case on January 19, 2014).

(2) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 4070,000 per month from December 20, 2012 to the delivery date of the instant building.

2. As to the defendant's argument

A. 1) The Defendant invested a large amount of money in order to operate a restaurant in the instant building, and paid a large amount of premium to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff pressured the Defendant to leave the building before the expiration of the instant lease term, and did not pay the Plaintiff a reasonable rent in order to resisting the Plaintiff’s unfair pressure. In such a situation, the termination of the instant lease on the ground of the Plaintiff’s delinquency in rent does not have any effect contrary to the good faith, and thus, the instant lease still remains valid. 2) Even if the instant lease was terminated, the Defendant obtained the Plaintiff’s consent and received the objective value of the instant building.