1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, each point of the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 shall be in sequence.

1. Basic facts

A. On or around September 2016, the Plaintiff owned the Defendant’s order No. 1-A.

The part of the building stated in the subsection (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) concluded a contract with a rental deposit of KRW 5 million, KRW 350,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 350,000.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

As part of the security deposit, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 500,000,000 on the date of the said oral contract, KRW 2,500,000,000 on October 5, 2016, and possessed the instant building transferred from November 2016 to the Plaintiff.

C. On November 29, 2016, the Defendant paid a sum of KRW 650,000 won to the Plaintiff as monthly rent, and KRW 2,000,000,000,000,000,000 to February 28, 2017, and did not pay the remainder of the monthly rent.

On March 4, 2017, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay by March 15, 2017, the deposited rental deposit and monthly rent to the Defendant via mobile phone text messages. If the Defendant expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease contract if he/she did not comply with the said request, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 21, 2017, and expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease contract by serving the duplicate of the written complaint.

E. If the Plaintiff’s total sum of KRW 1 million and KRW 650,000,00,000 and KRW 1.6550,000 received from the Defendant, deducted from November 2016 to March 2017 the Defendant’s total sum of KRW 1.75,50,000 (=350,000 x 5 months), the security deposit to be returned to the Plaintiff is extinguished, and the remainder is not remaining, and the Defendant obtains unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from April 1, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the grounds of the claim, the instant lease agreement is legitimate by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay in rent, etc.