1. The defendant delivers to the plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list, and the above real estate from June 1, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. Since 1993, the Defendant leased and used the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff, as a factory.

B. Upon the death of C, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate on June 16, 2009, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant have implicitly extended the lease agreement between C and the Defendant.

On April 12, 2016, the Defendant prepared a lease agreement on the instant real estate by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 7 million, monthly rent of KRW 800,000, and the term of lease by May 31, 2017.

C. Around March 19, 2019, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to refuse to renew the lease agreement that was terminated as of May 31, 2019 to the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap Nos. 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, according to the Plaintiff’s declaration of rejection of renewal, the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated on May 31, 2019.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 800,000 per month from June 1, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate.

On or after September 2018, the Plaintiff expressed that the Defendant had no intention to renew the lease agreement, and that the Defendant promised to deliver real estate on or after May 31, 2019, and consented to the reduction of KRW 100,000,000 as the monthly rent from September 2018 to May 2019, instead of promising the Defendant to deliver real estate on or after May 31, 2019. The Defendant did not implement the real estate delivery promise, and therefore, the Plaintiff asserts that the sum of the rent that has been reduced for the said nine-month period should be returned.

According to the evidence No. 3, although the plaintiff received 70,00 won from the defendant for the said nine-month period, it is recognized that the plaintiff received the difference from the defendant, the statement of evidence No. 4 alone is the defendant's real estate discretion.