1. The defendant shall be paid KRW 1,800,000 from the plaintiff and at the same time, from among the buildings listed in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 10, 2011, the Plaintiff leased a lease deposit of KRW 3 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000 (20,000 per month) and ten years for the lease term of KRW 48.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) connected the Defendant with each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the buildings listed in the attached Table list, in sequence, to the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Defendant paid KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, and received delivery from the Plaintiff of the instant building.

C. From July 20, 2014 to September 20, 2014, the Defendant did not pay monthly rent to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. At least twice the Defendant’s two times in arrears, a duplicate of the instant complaint containing an expression of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of delinquency in rent was served on the Defendant on October 31, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The part demanding the evacuation of the instant building

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the above lease agreement was terminated on October 31, 2014, which was delivered to the Defendant on July 20, 2014, on the ground that the Defendant failed to pay the monthly rent three times from July 20, 2014 to September 20, 2014, and the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s failure to pay the monthly rent at least twice.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to order the building of this case, unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant alleged that there was no delay in the determination on the Defendant’s assertion that he did not delay the rent of 100s. The Defendant left only the key to the building of this case without temporarily running the business in the instant case to C. However, the Plaintiff changed the key to the building of this case for urban gas construction, and the Defendant left the Plaintiff’s key to the Plaintiff.