1. The judgment of the first instance, including a claim modified at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

On February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) on February 16, 2015, determined that the instant building was leased to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 50,000,000; (b) monthly rent of KRW 2,200,00 (including value-added tax); (c) monthly management expenses of KRW 385,00 (including value-added tax); and (d) from March 16, 2015 to March 15, 2020 (hereinafter “lease”).

At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the original and the Defendant agreed that the lessor’s right to dispose of and ownership in all the facilities installed outside the leased building belongs to the lessor, and the lessee cannot claim for beneficial expenses, necessary expenses, etc., and the lessee cannot interfere with the lessor’s right to manage and exercise of ownership in all the facilities installed outside the leased building.

The Defendant paid the rent and management expenses to the Plaintiff only until October 2015, and the rent and management expenses from November 2015 to December 31, 2015, other than those paid KRW 775,590, and KRW 1,199,484 on February 11, 2016, are not paid.

Meanwhile, the Defendant’s unjust enrichment equivalent to unpaid rent, management fee, rent, and management fee is KRW 45,330,426 in total as of May 9, 2017 (=47,500 won per month = 47,585,00 won x 18 months x 9 days per month) - KRW 1,975,074 in the amount of the previous payment (i.e., the aforementioned KRW 775,590, supra KRW 1,199,484), and the unpaid electricity charge is KRW 4,453,65 in total and KRW 267,851 in total.

On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff declared to the Defendant that the instant lease contract will be terminated on the grounds of not less than two years of arrears, and the said declaration of intent was served to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 20 (including a provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated according to the plaintiff's declaration of termination on the ground of the defendant's delay of rent.

Therefore, the defendant does not have any special circumstances.