(a) In addition, indication of drawings (1), (2), (3), (4), and (1) of the three floors of the building listed in the attached list;

A. On May 6, 2011, the Plaintiff indicated in the annexed Form No. 1, (2), (3), (4), and (1) on the third floor of the building indicated in the annexed Table No. 3, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “lease”) 70,000 square meters in a deposit amount of KRW 7,000,000 per month (including value-added tax) for rent and management expenses (hereinafter “the instant lease”). The Defendant paid the Plaintiff a deposit of KRW 7,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff after the conclusion of the instant lease contract, and used the instant store as the place of business “D” upon delivery, and the Defendant did not pay a rent properly from July 31, 2013, the delayed rent of KRW 35,280,00 was not disputed between the parties, or on the ground that the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the lease agreement No. 1,23,280,000 is apparent by adding the purport of the entire written complaint No. 281 to the Plaintiff’s pleadings.

Therefore, the instant lease agreement was terminated on August 28, 2018 due to the Defendant’s delay in rent, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the overdue rent of KRW 41,365,483 [=the overdue rent of KRW 35,280,000 up to December 31, 2017 + KRW 6,085,483 (=70,000 + KRW 778/31) from January 1, 2018 to August 28, 2018.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff sought unjust enrichment equivalent to rent after the termination of the instant lease agreement.

The benefit in return of unjust enrichment on the ground of benefit without any legal ground refers to the substantial benefit. Thus, in a case where the lessee continued to possess the leased object even after the lease contract relationship is terminated, but there was no substantial benefit due to the failure to use it according to the original purpose of the lease contract.