1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached Form, and deliver the above building from April 15, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 26, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and the Plaintiff by setting a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1,100,000, and the lease term from September 15, 2016 to September 14, 2018, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(A) Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, hereinafter “instant lease contract”). B

The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed on September 14, 2018.

C. The Defendant did not pay a five-year rent until August 6, 2019. Around August 6, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract was terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated as the defendant's delinquency in rent, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

In addition, the Defendant continued possession of the instant real estate despite the termination of the instant lease agreement, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the rent and causing damages to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 1,100,000 per annum from April 15, 2020 to April 15, 2020 to April 1, 2020, as the Plaintiff seeks return of unjust enrichment (the fact that the return of the rent or the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent was paid, excluding KRW 1,100,000 as of April 15, 2020, is recognized by the Plaintiff himself).

3. The defendant's defense is alleged to the effect that the defendant's opinion regarding the use of management expenses for the real estate of this case was not reflected in the tenant's opinion, and that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because the plaintiff did not respond to the request, although the defendant's evidence presented by the defendant alone is the same.