A. On May 8, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) determined and leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant as deposit 3,00,000,000 won; (b) monthly rent 300,000; and (c) during the period from May 8, 2015 to May 8, 2017 (2) and transferred the real estate to the Defendant.

B. Since May 9, 2017, the Defendant did not pay monthly rent for the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract on the instant real estate has expired on May 8, 2017, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, as to the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the defendant, the amount of profit from the possession and use of the real estate in ordinary cases is equivalent to the rent of the real estate. According to the evidence No. 1, the monthly rent from May 8, 2015 to May 8, 2017, which the defendant commenced possession, is recognized as constituting 300,000, and the subsequent rent is confirmed as the same amount. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to 300,000 won per month from May 9, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the above real estate.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the remaining lease deposit after deducting a monthly rent is returned, and the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 3,000,000 to the deposit for lease on the same ground of simultaneous performance does not conflict between the parties, and that the lease contract on the instant real estate has been terminated, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is obligated to refund the deposit to the Defendant, and the obligation to return the deposit for lease is in the simultaneous performance relationship with the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the instant real estate.

On the other hand, the rent claimed by the plaintiff is reasonable.