(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From August 20, 2017, the above real estate.

A. On November 19, 2006, the Plaintiff leased the instant house to Defendant B with the term of KRW 3,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 150,000 (payment on January 19), and the term of lease of KRW 24 months.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease contract”). After the conclusion of the instant lease contract, Defendant B resides together with Defendant C, who is his father, in the instant house.

B. On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to Defendant B a content-certified mail that the instant lease agreement, which was explicitly renewed, would not be extended upon the termination of November 19, 2016, and the said content-certified mail reached Defendant B.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The instant lease contract, which was implicitly renewed after the conclusion of November 19, 2006, was terminated on September 30, 2016, when the Plaintiff notified of the rejection of renewal on September 19, 2016, from November 19, 2016, which was one month before the expiration of the lease term.

Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff, and to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated as KRW 150,000 per month from August 20, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant house, barring special circumstances.

(Plaintiffs recognized that they received unjust enrichment equivalent to rent or rent by August 19, 2017). (B)

As to the claim against Defendant C, the Plaintiff sought unjust enrichment equivalent to the delivery of the instant house and rent against Defendant C.

However, according to the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant C constitutes the tenant's family member's father and is in the position of possession assistant.

Unless special circumstances exist, a lessor cannot seek unjust enrichment from the delivery of the leased object or payment of rent to a possessor assistant. Thus, a claim against the Defendant C cannot be accepted.