A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including serial numbers), the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on September 20, 2016, stipulating that the store of this case owned by the plaintiff shall be KRW 5 million, KRW 370,000 per month, and KRW 370,000 per month (payment on September 20, 2018), and from the above lease date to September 20, 2018 (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”). On March 29, 2017, the plaintiff sent to the defendant a document proving that the lease of this case is terminated on the grounds of overdue payment of rent from January 2016 to March 2017, the plaintiff was legally obligated to deliver the above mail to the plaintiff, and the defendant was obligated to deliver the lease contract of this case to the plaintiff after January 2016.

[Attachment, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 6, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff completed the delivery execution of the store of this case on September 7, 2017, which was immediately after the defendant's appeal, based on the provisional execution of the judgment of the court of first instance. However, the execution based on the judgment of provisional execution is not conclusive, but is a condition subsequent to the appellate court to cancel the declaration of provisional execution or the judgment on the merits. Thus, the appellate court, the appellate court, without considering the result of the execution, shall determine the propriety of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Da211852, Aug. 30, 2016; 201Da35722, Sept. 8, 2011). (b)

The Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 370,000 per month the rent on the 20th day of each month in the instant lease agreement on the determination of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent or rent, and the Defendant.