1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 15, 2014, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 60 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million, and the period from July 30, 2014 to July 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. However, the former lessee delayed the delivery of the instant building on November 1, 2014, and the Defendant received the instant building on or around November 30, 201, and the cost of KRW 11 million was required to remove the facilities installed by the former lessee by November 30, 2014, and the said cost was agreed to deduct from the monthly rent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 2 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. From October 2014 to February 2015, the Defendant asserted that the instant lease agreement was not paid to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff notified the termination thereof on this ground. The instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated and terminated around August 31, 2015, which is the deadline stipulated in the notice of termination pursuant to Article 640 of the Civil Act or Article 10-8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent earned by occupying and using the instant building.

B. Since the duty of the lessor to allow the use of, and benefit from, the subject-matter of the lease agreement and the duty of the lessee to pay rent for the leased object are in response to each other, if the lessee is unable to use the subject-matter of the lease due to his/her nonperformance of the duty of the lessor to allow the use of, and benefit from, the subject matter

(Supreme Court Decision 96Da44778 Decided April 25, 1997). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant entirely uses the instant building until November 30, 2014 when the former lessee removed the facilities.