A. On July 21, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the lease of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 3,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

The Plaintiff used part of the annexed parking lot of the instant building (hereinafter “instant parking lot”) for the purpose of storing food, etc., while conducting the business of mutual recognition of “E” in the instant shopping mall, and the competent authority ordered the Defendant to restore the attached parking lot to its original state on the ground that it used it for another purpose.

C. The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to provide food, etc. in the instant parking lot, and against this demand, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant parking lot was the object of the instant contract and filed the instant lawsuit, claiming that the purpose of the instant contract cannot be achieved without the instant parking lot.

The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for extradition of the instant parking lot (Ulsan District Court 2019Da115913), and the Plaintiff delivered the instant commercial building and the instant parking lot to the Defendant on October 31, 2019, and the Defendant withdrawn the claim for extradition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff did not need to manage a parking lot for customers using the instant commercial building, and, at the Defendant’s request, determined to pay KRW 80,000 per month as the parking lot usage fee to the lessee is unilaterally disadvantageous to the lessee, and the amount of KRW 4,50,000 paid as the parking lot usage fee should be returned as unjust enrichment. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no