1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff ordering the delivery of real estate and the payment of money below.

Facts of recognition

The court's explanation about this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

With the exception of adding some of the contents as stated in paragraph (1), the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of paragraph (1), and it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

The following was added to the part of the judgment of the first instance court No. 3, 6 of the judgment, "................." The defendant and D, on September 3, 2017, failed to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20 million, KRW 200,000,000, value-added tax of KRW 4 million. From September 2017 to December 2017, the rent shall be adjusted to KRW 13.2 million, and the amount of July 4, 2017 shall be deposited as of September 4, 2017, and the amount of eight months shall be deposited as of September 4, 2017, and the amount of eight months shall be restored to the original contract." Since the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's additional bill No. 11 was "the grounds for cancellation of the lease agreement" at the bottom of the judgment of the first instance court No. 3, the plaintiff's cancellation of the lease agreement of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 87,740,000,000 for the unpaid rent by the time of termination and the amount equivalent to KRW 22,00,00 for unjust enrichment or damages from the day after termination of the lease agreement to the day after delivery of the instant real estate is completed.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to reduce the rent of KRW 13.2 million per month from September 2016 to August 2017 (the first year), and the rent of KRW 13.2 million per month from September 2017 to August 2018 (the second year).

Since the defendant paid all the rent according to the above agreement, the plaintiff cannot terminate the lease contract of this case.

The instant lease agreement was concluded.