1. The defendant

(a) Of the first floor of the building listed in the separate sheet, each of the marks indicated in the annexed sheet 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 of the annexed sheet.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a person who owns three-story buildings of the 3rd floor of the Dolsan-si C ground reinforced concrete structure.

On May 12, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) decided on May 12, 2015, the instant store to the Defendant for the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000; (b) monthly rent of KRW 900,000 (prepaid payment on May 5); and (c) June 1, 2015 through May 31, 2017 (Evidence A No. 2 appears to have been clearly written in May 30, 2017; (d) the lease agreement was concluded and leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The Defendant operated the import beer store with the trade name “D” at the instant store.

The Plaintiff paid 90,000 won to the Defendant in June, July, August, August, 2015, respectively, but did not pay the difference from September, October, 2015 and December, 2015.

On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate that the instant lease contract is terminated on the grounds of the delinquency in rent, and the said certificate reaches the Defendant around that time.

[Recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-2-2, the whole purport of the pleading, and the judgment as to the grounds for the claim for delivery, overdue rent, and unjust enrichment of the store of this case, the part concerning the claim for delivery of the store of this case was paid four times from June 1, 2015 to June 1, 2015 in which the lease period began, and thus, the plaintiff did not pay rent from October 1, 2016.

On February 11, 2016, at the time when the Plaintiff presented to the Defendant a certificate that he/she would terminate the instant lease agreement, the instant lease agreement was terminated according to the Defendant’s declaration of intention to terminate the said lease agreement.

The Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff does not dispute the fact that the defendant did not use or profit from the store of this case after August 2016.

However, the defendant is from the plaintiff around February 2016.