2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From September 8, 2018 to September 7, 2019, the Defendant leased the instant store, among the instant buildings owned by C, KRW 25,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000 (Additional Tax separately), and the lease period from September 8, 2018 to September 7, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Plaintiff purchased the instant building from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff on August 9, 2019 as the registration office of the Gwangju District Court was received on August 27, 2019 by reason of the sales contract as of August 9, 2019.

C. In addition, D Co., Ltd. completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of D Co., Ltd. as of August 27, 2019, received on August 27, 2019, by reason of trust contract on August 26, 2019.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant building on June 27, 2019 and on August 30, 2019, etc. after concluding the instant building sales contract with C, and sent a certificate to the Defendant that “the Plaintiff would reconstruct the instant building, and thus, cannot extend or renew the instant lease contract.” On September 7, 2019, the Plaintiff sent a certificate to the effect that “the instant lease contract is terminated on September 7, 2019,” and the Defendant received each of them.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On September 7, 2019, the Plaintiff sought that the Defendant order the instant store and pay an unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent on the grounds of the termination of the instant lease agreement.

However, the fact that the ownership of the building of this case, including the store of this case, has been transferred to D Co., Ltd. is identical to the above recognition, and the lessor's status has also been transferred to D Co., Ltd. pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. Thus, the plaintiff, not the owner, is entitled to seek the relief of the store of this case and the payment of unjust enrichment.