A. On January 7, 1992, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/3 shares of the real estate indicated in the annexed real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

On October 31, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, who had been used prior to October 31, 201, on which the lease deposit amount is KRW 30 million, monthly rent is KRW 650,000,000,000,000, and the term of lease is from October 31, 201 to October 30, 201 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. According to the instant lease agreement, the lessee is deemed to have restored to its original state upon the termination of the lease agreement.

C. The Defendant removed the changeer and part of the ceiling installed in the toilet for operating the scaming process in the leased part of this case, installed the facilities and the warehouse in the house, and separated the door.

In addition, the full glass of the leased part of this case has been partially damaged.

If construction works are conducted as a new product as of the date of closing argument in this case, the cost of restitution is KRW 6,770,000.

The instant lease agreement was terminated on October 30, 2013 after the expiration of the period of validity.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 8, 9, 11, Eul evidence 5 (including the number of each branch), the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As seen earlier, the India’s instant lease agreement has expired on October 30, 2013, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) Lease of portion of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent and rent is only a case where one of the parties agrees to allow the other party to use or benefit from an object, and the other party agrees to pay the rent for it.