1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate 99.44 square meters per floor listed in the separate sheet;

B. From August 16, 2016, the foregoing.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 2, 2006, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with C on a set of 20 million won for lease deposit, 1,000,000 won for monthly rent, and 1,000,000 won for lease period from August 12, 2006 to August 11, 2008 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and the said lease contract was explicitly renewed.

B. The Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 9, 2015.

C. On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract will not be renewed, and the Plaintiff sent the notification to the Defendant around that time.

The defendant does not pay the rent from August 2016.

[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 instant lease agreement was terminated on August 11, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s rejection of renewal, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment from the rent to the end of delivery of the said real estate at the rate of KRW 1,00,000 per month from August 16, 2016 to the end of delivery of the said real estate.

3. As to the defendant's argument, the defendant asserts that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request for extradition since he did not have any overdue error.

However, since the lease contract of this case was terminated by the expiration of the period, separate from whether the rent is delayed, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable.