1. The defendant is simultaneously with the delivery of one story of 334.64 square meters and 58.28 square meters underground from among the buildings listed in the attached list from the plaintiff.

1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 5, by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

On January 6, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the leased deposit of KRW 25,00,000,000 for the leased property, monthly rent of KRW 1,250,000 for the rent of KRW 1,250,00 for the rent of KRW 1,250,00 for the purpose of using it for a factory use from the Defendant as a factory, from February 6, 2012 to February 5, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”) B.

The plaintiff paid the above lease deposit to the defendant, and received the part of the building of this case from the defendant at the beginning date of the above lease term.

C. However, the Plaintiff did not pay to the Defendant at all since May 6, 2012.

Accordingly, around July 11, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant lease agreement and the delivery of the instant building portion by July 25, 2012, on the grounds that at least two months of arrears were overdue, and the said notification reached the Plaintiff around that time.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated due to the delay in rent for more than two years by the plaintiff.

Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 22,00,000,000, in arrears from KRW 25,000 to the date of termination of the lease deposit (see, e.g., the Plaintiff’s delayed payment of KRW 3,000,000,000, which is the remainder of the lease deposit (see, e.g., the complaint). (See, in light of the above recognition, it is apparent that such error was caused, and its purport is to be clearly deducted from the total amount of the overdue rent up to the date of termination).

B. The Defendant first claims the deduction of unjust enrichment equivalent to the first rent as to the Defendant’s assertion.