The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. In view of the termination of the instant lease agreement, the lower court determined that the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the Plaintiff by the completion date of delivery of the instant store.

The reasons are as follows. A.

The lease contract of this case expired on April 23, 2014 as follows.

(1) On July 31, 201, the Plaintiff was entrusted with the management and operation of the viewing plaza and underground shopping mall (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) owned by Seoul Special Metropolitan City from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Facility Management Corporation (hereinafter “Corporation”) and entered into an agreement on the condition of installation of convenience facilities, etc. (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

(2) On November 1, 2005, the Defendant: (a) leased the instant store from the Corporation for five years; (b) agreed to extend the lease period on November 1, 2010; (c) agreed to deliver the instant store on October 31, 2013, which is the expiration date of the extension contract; and (d) concluded a renewal contract by setting the lease period from November 1, 201 to October 31, 201 as the first year contract.

(3) The Plaintiff succeeded to the terms and conditions of the instant contract with the Defendant to maintain the lease agreement with respect to the instant store pursuant to the instant agreement, and finally concluded the lease agreement with the Defendant during the lease period from November 1, 2012 to October 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The said lease period expired on April 23, 2014.

B. It is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s right to claim renewal of the instant lease agreement under the instant agreement is recognized, and even if so, the Defendant’s right to demand renewal.