A. In addition to the written evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on January 7, 2016, setting the lease deposit of KRW 5 million, KRW 250,000 per month, and KRW 70,000 per month from January 7, 2016 to January 6, 2018 with respect to the instant building on January 7, 2016; the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff rent from February 7, 2017; the said lease agreement was terminated as of January 6, 2018.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff upon the termination of the above lease agreement.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had delivered the instant building, but it is difficult to find evidence to acknowledge it. However, the Defendant’s defense of the simultaneous performance of the lease deposit with the return of the lease deposit. As such, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff at the same time, at the same time, to receive the remainder of KRW 2.50,000 after deducting the rent of KRW 2750,000 from the lease deposit from the Plaintiff.

B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought unjust enrichment from January 7, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

In light of the above legal principles, where a lessee continued possession of the leased building part after the lease contract relationship was terminated, and there was no substantial benefit due to the lessee’s failure to use it or make profit in accordance with the original purpose of the lease contract, the lessee’s return of unjust enrichment is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da8554, Jul. 10, 1998). Since the Defendant appears to have not operated an office in the instant building from January 7, 2018, it appears that the Defendant is no longer operating the office in the instant building. Accordingly, from January 7, 2018, the instant building is used for profit in accordance with the original purpose of the lease contract.