1. The defendant

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. From January 25, 2018, the above buildings are located.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 12, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant under which the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) was leased under the terms of KRW 30,000,000, and the period from April 30, 2010 to April 30, 2012, and the first year’s rent of KRW 4,000,000 (temporary payment) for the first year (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff received the above security deposit from the Defendant and delivered the above building to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not pay the rent after May 1, 201, and that the instant lease contract was terminated, and sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the delivery of the instant building and the rent.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant is in arrears with two or more vehicles, and in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 5 and No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the content certification as of Aug. 3, 2015 and Jan. 22, 2018, containing the plaintiff's expression of termination, was served on the defendant around that time, based on the whole purport of the arguments No. 5 and No. 1. 1.

Therefore, as the instant lease contract has been terminated by the termination thereof, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from January 25, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the said building, barring special circumstances.

B. Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that “The amount of the above rent was paid KRW 4,00,000 per annum on a temporary basis only for the conditions or first year of KRW 4,00,000 per annum.” However, the Defendant asserted that “The said rent was paid KRW 20,000,000 per annum on a temporary basis, but at the Defendant’s request, the said rent was paid KRW 30,000,000 per annum on a deposit, instead of raising the deposit as KRW 30,000 per annum.”