1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the annex;

(b)payment of KRW 6,500,000;

C. May 9, 2016

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On March 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, providing that the lease deposit for the instant apartment is KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent is KRW 1,000,000, and the lease term is from April 9, 2015 to April 8, 2017, and that the contract may be terminated at the time of default on rent at least twice (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and leased the instant apartment to the Defendant.

C. Since April 9, 2015, the Defendant did not pay the vehicle more than twice.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the duty to deliver the leased object arises and the grounds for termination of the instant lease agreement occurred on more than two occasions due to the Defendant’s delinquency in payment, and the fact that the duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement was served on April 15, 2016 to the Defendant on the ground that the instant lease agreement was remarkably terminated on April 15, 2016.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff.

B. In the event of overdue rent, etc., the Plaintiff sought a return of overdue rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in arrears, calculated from August 9, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant apartment from August 9, 2015.

The Defendant paid the difference of KRW 7,500,000 in total from May 20, 2015 to April 8, 2016, and the fact that the Defendant paid the difference of KRW 6,500,000 to the amount of KRW 7,500 has no dispute between the parties.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment calculated by applying the rate of KRW 6,500,000 per annum from May 9, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant apartment from May 8, 2016 and KRW 1,00,000 per month from May 9, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant apartment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is within the scope of the above recognition.