1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The content of this part of the facts admitted by the court is as follows, except for the dismissal under Paragraph 1(c) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment]

C. On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff did not pay the lease fees under the instant lease agreement, despite the Plaintiff’s demand for the payment of the amount of the Plaintiff’s arrears over several times, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of early termination without any separate notice to the effect that the Plaintiff will immediately terminate the contract in a case where the Defendant does not pay the total amount of the arrears within 10 days from the date of receipt of the pertinent notification, as it is long as the Defendant’s delinquency is prolonged and cannot continue a normal financial transaction with the Defendant.

However, the defendant did not pay rent for ten days from the date of receipt of the notice of termination.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the lease contract of this case is deemed to have been lawfully terminated on the day following the lapse of 10 days after the plaintiff's notice of termination was delivered to the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to deliver the machinery of this case to the plaintiff.

B. As to the determination of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that, on the premise that the actual party to the instant lease agreement is not the Defendant, the Defendant is a stock company with the representative director, C has commenced rehabilitation procedures under the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2017 Ma100109. The claim based on the lease agreement should be treated as a rehabilitation security right, such as the sale of the ownership reservation book, in the rehabilitation procedure. As such, the Plaintiff cannot seek delivery of the instant machinery by exercising the right of repurchase.

However, according to the above facts of recognition, since it is apparent that the parties to the lease contract of this case are not C but C, the prior defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise.

The defendant.