1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a)in respect of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 of the separate sheet;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 28, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant with regard to the portion (a) of 9.18 square meters in the ship (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) that connects in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 1 of the attached drawings of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Subdivision, with the Defendant, with regard to the period of contract from March 15, 2016 to March 14, 2017, with regard to the amount of KRW 1,80,00 won in monthly rent (hereinafter referred to as “instant building agreement”).

B. From March 15, 2016 to January 14, 2017, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 2,800,000 among the monthly rent of KRW 18,00,000 for ten months from March 15, 2016 to January 14, 2017, but did not pay the remainder of KRW 15,20,000.

C. On December 19, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the instant lease agreement is terminated due to the delinquency in rent, and that time reaches the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, entry and video (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) of Gap evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the delivery of the instant building and rent

A. According to the above facts, since the instant lease contract was terminated due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 1,80,000 per month from January 15, 2017 to the completion of delivery of the said building.

B. As to this, the defendant argues that the whole building of this case is not occupied by the defendant, but according to the above evidence, the defendant can recognize the fact that he occupied the above building, so this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

In addition, the Defendant, as a lessor, failed to perform the repair obligation on the instant building, was unable to be used at all by the Defendant, so there is no obligation to pay monthly rent, and the Plaintiff’s husband and wife are the Defendant.