1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the buildings listed in the separate sheet 1, each point of the attached sheet 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 24, 2013, the Plaintiff leased DJ 262.4 square meters and E large-scale 245.8 square meters from Jeondong-gu, Seoul.

B. After that, the Plaintiff’s subsequent disposition is ordered on each land above.

A. (2) Following the new construction of the building mentioned in paragraph (2), the Defendant and February 4, 2014 entered into a lease agreement with the said building at KRW 20,000 for deposit money, monthly rent at KRW 900,000 for the said building (However, until October 31 of the same year, KRW 600,000 for the said year, and the period at KRW 58 months from the same date.

C. However, from July 4, 2016, the Defendant did not pay monthly taxes for at least three (3) months, and the Plaintiff knew of the termination of the said lease contract on October 6 of the same year.

On the other hand, the Defendant’s disposition No. 1 on each of the above lands

A. (1) Each of the buildings described in paragraph (1) is able to occupy the building with an extended area. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each of the entries in Gap evidence 1-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the grounds of the claim, the above lease contract was lawfully terminated due to the defendant's delinquency in payment of monthly rent, and the defendant is ordered to the plaintiff.

(a) Each building described in paragraph (1) shall be removed, and land and order of the removed part shall be ordered as per Disposition;

(a) Each delivery of the buildings described in paragraph (2), and Order 1 from July 4, 2016

(a) There is a duty to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to monthly rent of KRW 900,000 per month until the delivery of the building described in paragraph 2 is completed.

3. The defendant's assertion pointing out that the termination of the above lease agreement constitutes an abuse of rights, since the trust relationship was broken on the wind that the plaintiff unilaterally applied for compromise prior to the filing of the lawsuit and the payment of monthly rent was deferred.

Inasmuch as the plaintiff's claim cannot be seen as an abuse of right solely on the basis of the above argument, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted as reasonable.