The Defendant

A. Of the real estate listed in the attached list, the second-story neighborhood living facilities (marine treatment facilities) of the second-story is not less than 199 square meters.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 3, 2019, the Plaintiff, among the real estate listed in the attached list, leased the lease deposit of KRW 30 million to the Defendant with the second-class neighborhood living facilities (a massage place) 199.66 square meters, the second-class neighborhood living facilities (a massage place) 183.79 square meters, the second-class neighborhood living facilities (a office) 3 stories, the second-class neighborhood living facilities (a place) 15.87 square meters, the second-class neighborhood living facilities (a medical device retail place) 4 stories, and the second-class neighborhood living facilities of KRW 199.6 square meters (hereinafter “the lease object of this case”) from January 3, 2019 to June 20, 2022, the lease period of KRW 3 million from January 3, 2019 to June 20, 2022, the monthly rent of KRW 3 million (excluding value-added tax and payment

(hereinafter “Lease of this case”). (b)

The Defendant set up two signboards of “C” (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant signboards”) on the outer walls of the real estate indicated in the attached list, and operated the massage business in the leased object of this case.

C. From May 3, 2019, the Defendant did not pay the rent for the lease.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 8-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition under the above Paragraph 1, the Defendant did not pay the rent of the instant lease from May 3, 2019, and the fact that the complaint of this case stating the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the lease of this case was served on the Defendant on this ground is apparent. Thus, the said lease was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the lease of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the leased object of this case to the Plaintiff and pay rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to rent or rent, at the rate of KRW 3.3 million per month prescribed in the above lease agreement, from May 3, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the leased object of this case. The Defendant is obligated to remove each of the instant signboards.

(A) Although the Defendant alleged to the effect that he did not pay the rent, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected).

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.