1. The defendant points out of the eight floors of the building listed in the attached list to the plaintiff each point of the indication of the attached drawings (A)(C)(A)(A)(A).

The Defendant entered into a lease agreement between the Plaintiff on January 20, 2012 with regard to the real estate stated in the order (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1562,00 (including value-added tax) and the possession and use of the said real estate and did not pay rent from February 2014. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the said lease agreement on the ground of two or more teas around June 12, 2014, is not in dispute between the parties, or can be recognized in full view of the purport of the pleading in the statement in subparagraphs A and 3, and the above lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on June 12, 2014, barring any special circumstance.

I would like to say.

In this regard, the defendant argued that it constitutes an abuse of right to terminate the above lease contract without giving an opportunity to recover the investment money even though the defendant invested a enormous facility in the real estate of this case and contributed to the formation of the business district, but the above reasons alone cannot be seen as an abuse of right. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

Since the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, it is decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.