1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) A steel frame and board board of attached drawings installed in the real estate stated in the attached list;

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including partial numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings in this court’s on-site inspection, the plaintiff leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the warehouse of this case”) to the defendant on September 25, 2010, and again, on September 9, 2012, leased the warehouse of this case as KRW 22 million, monthly rent 2,520,000 (excluding value-added tax) to the defendant on September 12, 2012 to September 9, 2014; the defendant agreed to return the warehouse of this case after the termination of the lease contract; the defendant paid the warehouse of this case to October 8, 2013 to the defendant, and the plaintiff did not pay the warehouse of this case to the defendant on the ground that the warehouse of this case was closed by the second floor of the entrance of this case from November 1, 2013 to December 14, 2014.

According to the above facts, the lease contract on the warehouse of this case was terminated on the ground of the Defendant’s delay in rent. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove the facility of this case pursuant to the restitution agreement and deliver the warehouse of this case to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff 2,772,00 won per month from October 9, 2013 to the delivery date of the warehouse of this case (=2,520,000 won x 110%) unpaid rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff's claim is improper since he did not cooperate with the plaintiff in installing the temporary installation in the warehouse of this case, and did not comply with the request for acceptance of the warehouse. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff did not perform his duty, and the above circumstance alleged by the defendant is the defendant.