1. The Defendant: from July 15, 2018 to July 15, 2018, the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 7, 2016, the Plaintiff leased each of the instant real estate to the Defendant with a lease deposit of KRW 50 million, KRW 4840,00 per month, and the lease term from January 7, 2016 to January 7, 2019. The Defendant paid KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff around that time.

B. From July 15, 2018, the Defendant did not pay the above rent. Accordingly, on November 1, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the Plaintiff would not pay the rent for the fourth period in arrears within seven days from the date the certificate of content reaches.

However, even if the defendant received the above content certification, he did not pay the overdue charge within the above period.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, by neglecting the above content certification to the Defendant, was an indication of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, on the condition that the Defendant did not pay in full the above overdue charge within seven days from the date on which the Defendant received the above content certification.

However, the Defendant did not pay the above overdue charge within seven days after obtaining the above content certification. Thus, the instant lease agreement was legally terminated on the same day according to the Plaintiff’s expression of intention of termination, which became effective due to the fulfillment of the condition of suspension on the day when the said seven days were excessive.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid fees and the amount of unjust enrichment arising from the date of completion of delivery.

However, the above defendant's obligation to deliver each of the above real estate of this case is well-grounded in the defendant's defense that the plaintiff's obligation to return the remainder of the lease deposit after deducting the above unpaid fees and unjust enrichment from the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is the defendant at the level of KRW 50 million from the plaintiff.