(a) 2nd floor of the office of the 2nd floor and the 2nd floor of the cement brick slives slives slives of the Gwangju-dong-gu.

A. On April 10, 2012, Defendant B, from the Plaintiff, on April 10, 2012, deemed that Defendant B is the two-story office of the cement brick slives slives slives slives of Gwangju-dong, Gwangju-gu, and the two-story office of the multi-sections (hereinafter “instant store”).

) The lease deposit was leased KRW 3,500,000, monthly rent of KRW 350,000, and the lease term was set on April 10, 2014. (2) Defendant B did not pay KRW 6,650,000 in total for 19 months from September 2012 to March 2014.

3) Defendant B used the instant store even after April 10, 2014 when the lease was terminated. Defendant B paid KRW 1,500,000 as the monthly rent on July 16, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the lease contract was terminated on April 10, 2014, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff and pay KRW 1,650,000,000, which deducts the partial repayment of KRW 1,500,000 from the total of KRW 6,650,000, and the deposit for lease from the total of KRW 3,500,000, and it can be confirmed that the reasonable monthly rent is 350,000,000 from April 11, 2014, the following day after the termination of the lease contract due to the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, Defendant B is obligated to pay the amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 350,00 per month from April 11, 2014 to the date the delivery of the instant store is completed or the Plaintiff loses the Plaintiff’s ownership

The plaintiff asserts that he should pay rent and unjust enrichment in excess of the above amount, but it is necessary to deduct the deposit of KRW 3,500,000 from the deposit of lease. Therefore, the part's assertion is without merit.

2. The Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant C also sought delivery of the instant store and return of unjust enrichment. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C occupied the instant store, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder.