1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver each building listed in the separate sheet;

(b) KRW 18,421,379 and as regards it, 2020.

The Plaintiff leased the instant store to the Defendant at KRW 12,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,430,000 (including value-added tax) and from April 15, 2017 to April 14, 2019; the lease was renewed after the expiration of the lease period; the Defendant was in arrears with at least three vehicles, and the Plaintiff terminated the lease on or around February 2020; the Defendant still still uses the instant store; and the Defendant may be recognized as having no dispute between the parties, or as a whole taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent and rent.

From April 15, 2017, the starting date of lease to March 12, 2020, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, from March 12, 202, the period of use to March 12, 202, is 49,951,379 won, and the amount equivalent to the rent in this period is 1,430,379 won, and (34 + 27/29) = (34 + 27/29) = 49,951,379 won = total amount of KRW 30,030,000 for 21 months ¡¿ total of KRW 30,030,000 (written evidence No. 4). As such, the sum of rent and rent equivalent to the amount of rent in arrears until March 12, 2020 is 19,192,379,39,379,39,309,309,

Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement No. 2, the Defendant may acknowledge that the Defendant spent KRW 1,500,000 as the construction cost of the water supply and drainage pipe for the instant store on September 28, 2017. This constitutes necessary expenses and thus, the Defendant may claim reimbursement to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant’s overdue rent, etc. shall be deducted from the overdue rent, etc. upon the Defendant’

The plaintiff asserts that he had already paid KRW 1,500,000 to the defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the deposit should be settled at the rent in arrears, etc. However, the defendant's claim for the return of the deposit can not be offset against the plaintiff's claim for overdue rent, etc. by using it as an automatic claim in the simultaneous performance relationship with the plaintiff's claim for delivery of the store of this case.