1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 9, 2012, the Plaintiff is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On March 9, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The contents of the instant lease agreement set the following terms: (a) the lessor, the lessee, the lessee, the lease period from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2017; and (b) the rent without the lease deposit, from March 31, 2017, was 12% of the monthly sales generated by the Defendant while running a business in the instant real estate.

C. However, the Defendant, while running the instant real estate, did not delay for more than three months since May 2015.

The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay of rent.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the obligation to deliver real estate arises, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on September 21, 2015, by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserts that the termination of the instant lease agreement is unfair since the Defendant paid the Plaintiff that it was close to the Plaintiff.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1-4, the defendant paid the difference between October 5, 2015 and January 5, 2016 to the plaintiff from September 5, 2015 to December 2015, 2015, but it is recognized that the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated prior to the above rent payment by the defendant. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.