(a) Of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, each point is listed in the separate sheet No. 1), 2, 5, 6, and 1.

A. The Defendant, on August 10, 2007, connects each point of (A), (2), (5), (6), and (1) of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by C from C on August 10, 2007 (hereinafter “instant building”) with the stores selling 23.1 square meters of the freezing outlet (hereinafter “instant store”).

) A lease agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the lease deposit KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent KRW 600,000, and the lease period determined by August 10, 209 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(B) B. B. On June 20, 2015, C entered into a contract to sell the instant building with the Plaintiff, and on July 8, 2015, the Plaintiff received the registration of transfer of ownership based on the said sale. Meanwhile, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed whenever the term expires. On the other hand, C notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff, who was delegated by C, was not the renewal of the instant lease agreement, around August 10, 2015 near August 10, 2015, the term of the instant lease agreement expires. D. The Defendant occupied the instant store up to the present day. [In the absence of grounds for dispute, the Defendant’s each entry in Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, and the entire purport of the pleadings.

2. Determination:

A. According to the fact that the Defendant’s duty to deliver the instant store was acknowledged, in the instant case where the instant lease contract terminated on August 10, 2015 with the expiration of the lease term and the Defendant did not have any legitimate authority to possess the instant store, the Defendant, who is the possessor of the instant store, has the duty to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, who is the owner thereof.

B. The Defendant’s duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent also exceeds the Defendant’s duty to return unjust enrichment.

In full view of the determination of the claim and the above facts acknowledged, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to illegal possession of the instant store from August 11, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store.