A. The Plaintiff delivers to the Plaintiff a 102.08 square meters warehouse among the real estate listed in the attached list.

2. The Plaintiff

The plaintiff delivered the warehouse of this case to the defendant on the same day, and the defendant paid the above deposit to the plaintiff.

Then, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff all the rent under the instant lease agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the judgment on the grounds for the claim as a whole, based on the above facts-finding facts, as to the claim for extradition, since the lease contract of this case expired, the defendant is obligated to deliver the warehouse of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

A lease on a claim for return of unjust enrichment becomes effective when one of the parties agrees to allow the other party to use or benefit from an object and the other party agrees to pay a rent for it. Thus, in a case where a lease contract is terminated, the lessee is obligated to order the lessor to use the object and pay a overdue rent until the end of the lease, barring any special circumstances. Moreover, the lessee is also obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the possession or use of the object from the end of the lease to its completion date.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da21856, 21863 Decided August 23, 2007, etc.). In light of the foregoing, comprehensively considering the following, the above facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, where the Defendant stores and keeps goods inside the warehouse of this case, it can be deemed that the Defendant uses and uses them in accordance with the original usage of the warehouse.