1. The defendant shall order the plaintiff to point out each of the three floors of the building listed in the attached list, with the indication of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached drawings.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 13 and all the arguments.

On June 16, 201, the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant KRW 10,000 from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013, the lease deposit amounting to KRW 56.10m2 (hereinafter “instant building”) of the portion (A) in the attached Form Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the three floors of the building listed in the attached Table Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 56.10m2 (hereinafter “instant building”) among the three floors of the building owned by the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “the lease of this case”) B.

The lease of this case has been implicitly renewed due to the Plaintiff’s failure to notify the rejection of renewal or to notify the change of conditions between six months and one month before the expiration of the term of lease.

2. Pursuant to Article 10(4) and (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, where the lease is implicitly renewed because the lessor fails to notify the lessee of the refusal of the renewal or to notify the lessee of the change of the terms and conditions between six months and one month before the expiration of the term of the lease, the term of the renewed lease is one year, and thus, the term of the renewed lease is one year. Thus, the term of the instant lease, which was explicitly renewed from July 1, 2013, which was terminated at the expiration of the term of June 30, 2016.

Therefore, the defendant should deliver the building of this case, which is the object of lease, to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that management expenses, deemed rent, common electricity charges, water supply and sewerage charges, heating charges, etc. which the plaintiff unfairly imposes on are repaid, and that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim for delivery of the building until he/she receives compensation for damages for business obstruction caused by the closure of rooftop entrance and exit and the use of passage as a parking lot.

However, it is deemed that the obligation of the plaintiff to pay damages and the obligation of the defendant to deliver the building of this case simultaneously is in the performance relationship.