1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) A drawing out the first floor retail store of a building in the attached list and a general restaurant of 200.66m2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with regard to a lease agreement on the one-story retail store of the building in the attached list, general restaurants, and general restaurants of 200.66 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) that connects each point of 5,6,9,10,000 square meters in the attached list, in order to each point of 50.8 square meters in the attached list (hereinafter “instant store”) with the Defendant.

B. The Defendant did not pay KRW 100,000 out of the rent for November 2014, and did not pay the rent thereafter.

(C) The defendant asserts that he paid a rent in cash to his husband, etc., but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail that expresses his/her intent to terminate the contract, and the said content-certified mail was served to the Defendant around that time.

The defendant does not deliver the store of this case without paying the difference until the date of closing the argument.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the grounds of the claim, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated around February 13, 2015.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and pay to the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 2,900,000 calculated by subtracting the deposit amount of KRW 2,000,000 from the unpaid rent and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 4,900,00 from November 2014 to May 2015 (i.e., KRW 800,000 x six months) and the amount of KRW 2,90,000 calculated by deducting the deposit amount of KRW 2,00,000 from June 21, 2015 to June 21, 2015.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.