1. From 31,60,000 to 31,60,000 won, the Defendant shall deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet from June 21, 2017 to the completion date of delivery.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the termination of a lease agreement, the Plaintiff entered in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the following: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on August 21, 2014 with regard to the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) as to the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent, KRW 600,000, and the lease term from August 21, 2014 to August 20, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and (b) delivered the instant building to the Defendant on August 21, 2014; (c) the Defendant continued to reside in the instant building even after the lease term expires; and (d) the Defendant did not pay it as from April 21, 2016.

The plaintiff expressed his intention to terminate the lease contract of this case on the ground that the service of a copy of the complaint of this case was not less than twice again, and thereby the lease contract of this case was terminated.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff and pay the money calculated by the ratio of KRW 600,000 per month from April 21, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case with unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and rent.

B. The judgment on the simultaneous performance defense was made that the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's request until 40,000,000 won of lease deposit was returned, and thus, there was no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the testimony of witness D, in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff was awarded the building of this case at the time of the winning of the building of this case in the Suwon District Court E-auction E-auction procedure, Suwon District Court. The building of this case was owned by F, who was the defendant's birth. The building of this case was failed several times at the above auction procedure and was in the absence of the remaining amount if distributed to the senior mortgagee of mortgage, G was introduced by wood company D, and help the plaintiff's family.