1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 4 of the annexed Form 3 drawings among the underground floors of the building and the first floor of the building listed in the annexed Table 1 list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building listed in Annex 1. List and the building listed in Annex 2. List (A building listed in Annex 2. is an unauthorized multi-story building attached to the building listed in Annex 1.).

Since about 16 years prior to the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the part (A) of the ship (26.52m2 and the building listed in the attached Table 2(hereinafter “instant building”) connected with each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the underground floor of the building and the 1st floor, which are indicated in the attached Table 1 list, in sequence.

The most recent lease contract was concluded on January 1, 2014 with a monthly rent of KRW 3 million and the lease period of KRW 24 months (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

B. The Defendant did not pay monthly rent since April 2015.

On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement to the Defendant on the grounds of the delinquency in monthly rent, and paid the instant monthly rent to the Defendant by July 15, 2015, and sent a document verifying the delivery of the instant building.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2-4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on the ground that the Defendant’s delayed payment reaches the Defendant’s two-year annual rent.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff and pay the plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent until the close monthly rent and the future delivery.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion still remains, and the Plaintiff, as a lessor of the instant building, has a duty to allow the lessee to engage in a business in a peaceful manner consistent with the purpose of use and profit-making of the building. The failure of all facilities, waterproof and pollution response facilities are not installed in order to ensure that the lessee can use and benefit from the building.