1. The Defendant shall deliver the building indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, and deliver the building from November 1, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,000,000 (Additional Tax), and from May 30, 2016 to May 29, 2018. On May 15, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement for additional lease of KRW 2,00,000 (Additional Tax separately) among the buildings listed in the attached Table attached to the Plaintiff’s list.

(hereinafter, the above lease agreement is entirely referred to as “the instant lease agreement.”

The defendant occupies C Dong and D Dong among the buildings listed in the attached list, but does not pay the plaintiff monthly rent from November 1, 2016.

On November 16, 2017, a duplicate of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, reached the Defendant on November 16, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim and the defendant's assertion

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the grounds of the claim, the instant lease was lawfully terminated on November 16, 2017 on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent for at least three years.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building attached to the attached list to the plaintiff and pay the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 4,400,000 per month to overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from January 1, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the building.

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is asserted that around October 2017, the defendant terminated the lease agreement on the Ddong and delivered the above Ddong to the plaintiff from among the buildings listed in the attached Table list with the plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above assertion is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.