A. The Plaintiff is a non-corporate body organized by collectively owning the land of Jeju-si, Jeju-si, and jointly operating the farm.

B. On November 30, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the land of 23 lots, including the land indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) the purpose of the lease was to set the Defendant a total of KRW 130 million for the rent five years from December 1, 201, to November 31, 201, from December 1, 201, to November 31, 201, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

The land of this case continues to be occupied by the defendant as of the date of closing argument of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the recognition of the above claim for the delivery of land, the instant lease contract terminated on November 31, 2016, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant, during the lease agreement period of this case, installed a pents and stables on the land of this case and increased its objective value, so the plaintiff is obligated to repay this to the defendant as beneficial cost, and accordingly, the defendant has the right to attract the land of this case.

However, according to the evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to restore the leased object to its original state at the expiration of the lease term when concluding the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff, and thus, even if the Defendant committed an act as alleged above, the Defendant did not have the right to claim reimbursement for beneficial expenses against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that points this out is with merit, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

B. Furthermore, the Defendant filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment without any legal ground from the day after the period of the instant lease expires.