2. The appeal costs.

A. On March 26, 2011, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants on the instant store jointly owned with the terms of KRW 3,000,000,000 per deposit, KRW 200,00 per month of rent, and the term of lease from April 1, 201 to March 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Defendants did not pay a vehicle after February 1, 2012, and the Plaintiffs notified the Defendants of the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs seek unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 3,00,000 (20,000 x 15 months) calculated by deducting the lease deposit from February 1, 2012 to April 30, 2013, and the rate of KRW 200,000 per month from May 1, 2013 to April 30, 2013.

The facts that the Defendants did not pay a rent after February 1, 2012 are as seen earlier, and the rent of KRW 2,400,000 ( KRW 2,00,000 x 12 months) from February 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013 should be deducted from the lease deposit, and the fact that the Defendants delivered the instant store to the Plaintiffs on or after the end of January 2014 does not conflict between the parties.

However, the benefit in return of unjust enrichment on the ground of benefit without legal grounds refers to the substantial benefit. Thus, even after the lease contract relationship is terminated, if the lessee continued possession of the leased building even after the lease contract relationship was terminated, and there was no substantial benefit due to the failure to use it in accordance with the original purpose of the lease contract, then the lessor suffered loss.

Even if a lessee does not fulfill his/her duty of return of unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da50526, Mar. 28, 1995).