1. The Defendant delivers to the Plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list, and from July 1, 2016, the instant building is worth KRW 22,440,00 and KRW 22,00.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On February 18, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant by setting the deposit of KRW 20 million, KRW 1,870,000, KRW 1,870,000 (including value-added tax) for the month of rent, and the period of February 28, 2017. However, the Defendant is in arrears as of July 2015, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s termination of the said lease agreement does not conflict between the parties, or that the Plaintiff’s termination of the lease agreement is recognized in full view of the entries in the attached list No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 22,440,00 (i.e., KRW 1,870,000 x 12 months from July 1, 2015 to June 2016) and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 1,870,000 per month from July 1, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the said building.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant argued to the purport that the defendant made the building up of the empty building that was not originally used (a partition, LED electric light, color, air conditioners, CCTV, etc.) and made it possible to see it as much as possible, so it is difficult to view that the defendant has any legal right to request the plaintiff to compensate for the above interior work. Rather, according to the evidence No. 1, the defendant is obligated to recover the building in question to its original state and return it to the plaintiff upon the termination of the above lease agreement. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.