1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From June 26, 2015, the above-mentioned A

subsection (b).

1. In full view of the purport of the argument as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the plaintiff entered into a lease contract (hereinafter "the lease contract of this case") on January 31, 2015, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million, KRW 130 million per month, and the lease term of February 25, 2015 to February 25, 2017. The defendant did not pay a rent after June 25, 2015, and the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having declared that the lease of this case is terminated on the ground of the defendant's delinquency in payment due to the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case. Thus, the lease contract of this case is lawfully terminated on September 16, 2015, since the plaintiff delivered the copy of the complaint of this case to the defendant at least two years, the copy of the complaint of this case, stating the plaintiff's declaration of termination on the ground of rent delay, to the defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff upon the performance of the duty to restore, and to pay the unpaid rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 1.3 million per month from June 25, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

2. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.