1. The defendant delivers 69.84 square meters to the plaintiff among the buildings listed in the attached list, and pays KRW 4,797,650 to the plaintiff.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On December 19, 2011, the Defendant leased the first and second floors among the buildings listed in the attached list (the instant building) from B during the period from January 2, 201 to January 2, 201, by setting the deposit amount of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, and the lease period from January 2, 2012 to January 2, 2014.

The defendant is operating accommodation business for foreign tourists on the 1st and second floor of the building in this case after being designated as urban home accommodation business by Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and completing business registration in Mapo-gu.

B. The Plaintiff purchased the instant building from B and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 28, 2014, and succeeded to the said lessor’s status.

C. On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit and sought the delivery, etc. of the instant building by asserting that B had notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the lease from around November 2013, and the Defendant notified the Defendant that he would not renew the lease after January 2, 2015, when the period of lease renewed in accordance with the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act expires during the process of multi-investment litigation, on September 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Gap 8, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the instant building as the lease term for the instant building expired January 2, 2015. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent calculated by 1650,000 won per month after the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant building (the added amount of KRW 1.5 million).

In this regard, the defendant's exercise of the right to demand renewal under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act and the lease contract is legally renewed, so it is not possible to comply with the request for extradition, and the rent is paid or deposited in full.

The defendant is the plaintiff as a preparatory document dated 29 October 2014.