1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. According to the plaintiff's expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial, the defendant 7.7.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 2 as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that on July 1, 2012, the plaintiff leased the land and building located in Busan-gun C (hereinafter “instant land”) in Busan-gun C (hereinafter “instant land”) with the monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000 (payment on July 30), and the lease period of 60 months, and thus, the defendant fulfilled the obligation to pay the overdue rent by the plaintiff’s assertion.

Unless otherwise asserted or proved as to the termination of the obligation to pay the overdue rent, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the sum of the overdue rent of KRW 43.2 million (=1.2 million x 36 months) from July 2013 to June 2016, as claimed by the Plaintiff, and any delay delay damages.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 7.2 million in total, including KRW 1.2 million around September 5, 2013, November 7, 2013, December 13, 2013, January 2013, January 2013, January 2014, January 29, 2014, and July 2014, and that the Plaintiff paid the said amount to the Plaintiff as an enclosed rent by June 2013.

In light of the fact that the Defendant stated on May 24, 2016 that “No dispute exists as to the unpaid rent of KRW 36 million from July 2013 to December 2015” from the date of the second pleading of the first instance court, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 7.2 million from July 7, 2013 to June 2015 by the rent of KRW 7.2 million is insufficient, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, the defendant asserts that since the land of this case was acquired through consultation with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and was unable to receive the premium, it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to claim the rent in arrears

However, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as terminating the Defendant’s obligation to pay the rent, so the Defendant’s above assertion is also without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s delayed payment of KRW 43.2 million to the Plaintiff and KRW 36 million to the Plaintiff from July 2013 to December 2015.