원상회복 및 건물인도
1. The defendant
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the annex;
B. From April 16, 2015 to the completion date of the above extradition.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The fact of recognition that the Defendant entered into a contract for lease (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with the Plaintiff on November 1, 2008 by setting the lease deposit of KRW 50,00,000, KRW 2,860,000 per month of rent, and KRW 2,860,000 per year from November 1, 2008, and the lease term of the instant lease contract for one year from November 1, 2008. The fact that the lease term under the instant lease contract has been renewed until October 30, 2013; the fact that the Defendant occupied and used the instant building until now does not conflict between the parties, or that the Defendant occupies and uses the instant building by taking account of the overall purport of the statement in subparagraph 1 and the oral argument.
B. According to the fact that the duty to return the leased object was acknowledged, the instant lease contract was terminated on October 30, 2013, and barring any other circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, barring any other circumstance. (ii) Although the instant lease contract was terminated on October 30, 2013, the Defendant occupied and used the instant building until now, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 286,00 per month from October 31, 2013 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.
(However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff sought the return of unjust enrichment after April 16, 2015 on the ground that the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from October 31, 2013 to April 15, 2015 was deducted from the lease deposit of this case.
A. Determination 1 on the assertion on the deposit for lease 1) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving a refund of KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that, if the Plaintiff deducts unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent as seen earlier from the deposit for lease, there is no deposit to be returned to the Defendant. 2)