1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

(b) As from March 2, 2016, KRW 9,471,470 and the foregoing.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 22, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant to lease real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with a deposit of KRW 15,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,700,000 (excluding value-added tax), from April 3, 2015 to March 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

According to the instant lease agreement, the Defendant shall separately pay the management expenses in addition to the monthly rent, and the Defendant shall restore the instant real estate to its original state and return it to the Plaintiff where the lease contract is terminated.

B. The Defendant did not pay KRW 9,350,00 in total monthly rent from October 2, 2015 to February 2016, and KRW 121,470 in total, electricity and water supply and sewerage charges.

Accordingly, around March 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract was terminated on the ground of the delinquency in monthly rent for five months.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, since the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff's notice of termination, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff and pay to the plaintiff the monthly rent of this case calculated by the ratio of KRW 1,870,00 per month from March 2, 2016 to March 2, 2016 and the completion date of delivery of the real estate of this case.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before receiving the above cost of KRW 5,00,000, since he invested in the expenses such as accepting the inside of the real estate of this case and installing the pressing.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant spent the beneficial or necessary expenses concerning the real estate of this case, and that the defendant paid them, as well as that of this case, to the effect that the defendant exercised the right of retention based on the beneficial or necessary expenses.