1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,436,294 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from June 10, 2014 to August 5, 2015, and the next day.

Facts of recognition

On November 1, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the part 101,102 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) among the buildings listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) from the Defendant as KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,700,000 (Additional Tax), monthly management expenses, KRW 100,000, and the lease period from November 8, 201 to November 8, 201, and paid the lease deposit to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement.” The instant lease agreement was extended on a yearly basis, and was changed to KRW 2,000,000 (Additional Tax) from November 8, 2012.

On April 22, 2014, while the Plaintiff was in arrears after February 2, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his intention to terminate the instant lease agreement. Accordingly, the Defendant notified that the instant commercial building should be restored to its original state and the contract should be terminated, but the Plaintiff unilaterally moved out the possession of the instant commercial building on May 7, 2014.

On May 28, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff to restore the commercial building of this case to its original state, and started the interior removal work on June 9, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap 3, 4 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the plaintiff's assertion that the lease contract of this case was terminated by the plaintiff

Since the defendant agreed to respond to the Gu on May 7, 2014, the defendant is entitled to pay 24,000,000 won and damages for delay remaining after subtracting the sum of 6,000,000 won in arrears of the plaintiff from the lease deposit.

Judgment

On April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his intention to terminate the instant lease agreement, and was dismissed from the possession of the instant commercial building on May 7, 2014. However, at the time, there was a dispute with the Defendant regarding the scope of restoration to the original state of the instant commercial building, and the Defendant took the position that the instant lease agreement should be terminated, and otherwise, the Defendant occupied in response to the Plaintiff’s termination of the contract.