1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall display 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached Form 2 among the two real estate floors listed in the attached Table 1 list to the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the purport of each of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 of the part of the claim against defendant B (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with defendant B on May 15, 2019 as the owner of the instant store with the following contents (hereinafter referred to as "the instant lease agreement"). The defendant B operated a restaurant with the trade name "D" upon delivery of the instant store around that time. As of March 31, 2020, the defendant B, as of March 31, 202, failed to pay the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 45,506,869, including management expenses, electricity, electricity, water supply fees, and value-added tax on them, including KRW 27,000,000, total amount of KRW 6-year rent, etc. as of March 31, 200, the plaintiff expressed his intent to terminate the lease agreement of this case on the ground that the defendant B was three or more vehicles.

E According to the facts of recognition A, the instant lease agreement is deemed to have been lawfully terminated. As such, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from April 25, 2020 to the date of full payment after serving a written application for modification of the purpose of the claim and the cause of the claim as of March 31, 2020, and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 4,500,000 won per month from April 1, 2020 to the date of complete delivery of the instant store from April 1, 2020 to the date of complete delivery.

(1) The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of damages for delay calculated at 24% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, but the said unpaid amount includes only the damages for delay from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint. Thus, the Plaintiff recognized only the damages for delay from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint, and the claim exceeding this is without merit.