1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver 1007, No. 1007, No. 37.39 square meters of Jeonju-si Ctash, Jeonju-si;

B. On December 1, 2014

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 25, 2014, D leased, on behalf of the Plaintiff, a building specified in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant, with a deposit of KRW 3 million, KRW 150,000,000 per month, KRW 150,000 per month, and the period from February 28, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

From December 1, 2014, the defendant does not pay the rent.

C. On June 10, 2015, a duplicate of the instant complaint containing an expression of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s failure to pay rent was served on the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, obvious facts in records, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement is deemed terminated on June 10, 2015 due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated by the ratio of KRW 150,000 per month from December 1, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the said building.

B. The defendant's assertion that the lease contract of this case was not terminated as long as the plaintiff did not notify the payment of the rent or the deposit remains after deducting the overdue rent from the overdue rent. However, according to Article 640 of the Civil Act, if the overdue rent of the tenant from the lease of a building falls short of the rent of two years, the lessor may terminate the lease contract, and therefore, the reason is without merit.

In addition, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the instant building may be used and enjoyed until the expiration of the contract period, since the necessary or beneficial cost of the instant building was paid to the Defendant, but it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant inputs expenses to preserve the instant building or to increase its objective value only with the entries of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 2-1 through 4 of the evidence No. 1-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.