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 October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff sub-leaseed each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) to the Defendant with the amount of KRW 50 million per re-lease deposit, KRW 4.3 million per month, and the period from October 23, 2013 to October 22, 2014, and the said sub-lease contract was explicitly renewed on October 23, 2014.

B. From July 2014, the Defendant did not pay the rent, and the Defendant served the Defendant on January 22, 2015 a duplicate of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the said sub-lease contract on the grounds of the delay of rent at least twice.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-3 evidence

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the above sub-lease contract was lawfully terminated on January 22, 2015 by the plaintiff's notice of termination. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver each of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that since most of the overdue rent was paid by the defendant, the above sublease contract is valid.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant paid the plaintiff the rent for July and August 24, 2014, and the rent for September and October 26, 2015.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant had already terminated the said sub-lease contract on January 22, 2015, prior to the date on which the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the delayed payment for September 2014 and October 2014. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(C) If the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on March 23, 2015, even if the defendant was served a duplicate of the complaint of this case by mail delivery as of March 23, 2015.