건물인도 등
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
(b) from November 4, 2015, entry in the separate sheet.
Around October 5, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with a deposit of KRW 280 million for the period from November 3, 2013 to November 3, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). On September 15, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she would refuse to renew the instant lease contract by content-certified mail; the said content-certified mail reached the Defendant around that time; the Defendant is currently residing in the instant real estate; the fact that the instant real estate is the volume of KRW 40,00,000 per month; or the fact that the instant real estate is the volume of KRW 40,000,000,000,000 by adding the entire arguments to each of the arguments stated in subparagraphs 1 through 4 and 7.
According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case terminated on November 3, 2015.
As such, the Defendant shall deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and shall pay the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 400,000 per month from November 4, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate as unjust enrichment.
[The duty to return the leased object arising from the termination of the lease contract and the duty to return the remainder after deducting the lessor’s default from the lessor’s repayment. Thus, if the lessee has continuously occupied the leased building by exercising his/her right of defense of simultaneous performance even after the termination of the lease contract, the lessee’s possession of the building cannot be deemed an illegal possession, but it is natural to return it as unjust enrichment (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da45202, Apr. 14, 1992).