1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list, and the attached list from September 13, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. On February 17, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to the Defendant as KRW 50,000,000 for the rental deposit deposit deposit, the contract period from March 13, 2014, and KRW 3.2 million for the monthly rent from March 13, 2014 (the agreement to reduce the rent by KRW 2.8 million as of March 21, 2014), and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the said contract was terminated on March 2016, if the Defendant delayed the payment of monthly rent and did not pay the management fee, and the fact that the sum of the monthly rent and the management fee in arrears from August 17, 2018 exceeds KRW 53,591,870 (the fact that there is no dispute and the statement in subparagraphs A through A-7).2.

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff and pay the amount equivalent to the rent of this case until the delinquent monthly rent, management fee of 53,591,870 won and the delivery of the building of this case as unjust enrichment.

On the other hand, the plaintiff also sought management expenses of KRW 400,000 per month which will occur until the delivery of the building of this case, but the statement of evidence No. 2 of this case alone continues to bear management expenses exceeding the amount.

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant continued to delay the payment of management expenses, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not properly inform the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant building was not in a state of being compared with other real estate at the same market price, and that the Plaintiff did not suffer from the suffering because of the fact that the air condition condition installed in the instant building did not go behind, and that there was no delay in payment until the lease contract is renewed on March 12, 2016, and that the Plaintiff refused to obtain the fixed date of the lease contract from the Defendant or demanded the Plaintiff’s disguised transfer.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and the reasons alleged alone cannot be deemed as a legitimate ground for refusing to pay the delivery and overdue rent of the building of this case.

3. Conclusion.