A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendants on the condition that the Defendants lease the instant building, a commercial building, KRW 16,300,00 from the Plaintiff, KRW 1,800 per month of rent, KRW 00 per month, and KRW 1,80,000 from July 2, 2016 to July 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the Defendants are occupying and using the restaurant in the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 5, gist of plaintiff's assertion in the whole argument

A. On March 20, 2017, the Defendants delayed to pay the rent under the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on the grounds of delinquency in rent by sending content-certified mail to the Defendants. If the Plaintiff’s termination is not lawful, the instant lease agreement terminated upon the expiration of the lease term.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have the duty to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

B. Since the Defendants used the instant building even after the termination of the instant lease agreement, they are jointly obligated to jointly pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 1,80,000 per month from July 2, 2017 to the delivery date of the instant building from July 2, 2017 to the date of delivery of the instant building.

Judgment

As to the cause of claim regarding a request for the delivery of a building, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant lease contract was terminated on or around March 20, 2017 upon the termination of the Plaintiff’s termination.

According to Gap evidence No. 6, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to the defendant B on March 20, 2017, stating that "the contract date shall be observed."

However, this cannot be viewed as having declared the intention of termination, so it cannot be seen as having been above.