1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the real estate listed in the attached list, each point of which is indicated in the attached Form 6, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 22, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and the Plaintiff, setting forth a lease agreement with a portion of KRW 231 square meters in the attached Form No. 6, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the real estate indicated in the attached Table No. 2013, which is indicated in the attached Table No. 6, 3, 4, 5, and 6, with a lease deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 4 million, monthly rent of KRW 300,000 (excluding value-added tax), monthly rent of KRW 30,000, and the lease period from August 30, 2013 to August 29, 2015.

B. From the time when the above contract was concluded to the present real estate portion to the present date, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the rent from November 30, 2013 to the end of January 30, 2013, and subsequently paid the rent to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On April 11, 2014, the above recognition of the lease agreement was duly terminated on April 11, 2014, when the Plaintiff appears to have delivered a copy of the complaint of this case, stating that the said lease agreement will be terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in payment of rent.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the said real estate portion to the Plaintiff, and to pay the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 4.4 million per month from January 31, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate portion as rent and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff sought reimbursement of rent or unjust enrichment after December 30, 2013. However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant paid rent up to January 2014. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

On March 2014, the defendant argued that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to reduce or change the rent under the above lease agreement to KRW 3 million per month (excluding value-added tax), but since there is no evidence to recognize it, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is the scope of recognition.