However, in this case, the plaintiff withdrawn the lawsuit against the co-defendant C of the first instance court, and the claim for extradition of the house of this case was changed in exchange for the lawsuit to seek the implementation of the cancellation registration procedure for the house lease registration, and the defendant did not appeal against the counterclaim claim.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the plaintiff's principal claim against the defendant for cancellation of the registration of housing lease and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to delayed rent or rent.

2. Judgment on the claim for cancellation of registration of housing lease

A. The plaintiff's assertion was completed the registration of the right to lease (hereinafter "registration of the right to lease of this case") for the housing of 20,000,000 won as the director in the housing of this case owned by the plaintiff as to the housing of this case. The plaintiff did not have received the above right to lease from the defendant as to the housing of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the lease registration of this case to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the reasoning of the Plaintiff’s judgment ex officio as to the claim for cancellation of the registration of the right to lease of housing which was changed in exchange in this court among the principal lawsuit of this case, the Defendant’s registration of the right to lease of this case, which was completed on October 19, 2017 as “20 million won for lease deposit, KRW 100,000 for rent, KRW 100,000 for rent, and KRW 100,000 for rent, and April 20, 2016 for the date of lease,” under Article 31231 of the same Court’s receipt of the registration of the right to lease of this case on October 26, 2017, is recognized.

However, there is a problem.