1. Basic facts

A. From around 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant around 1998 on the instant store and extended it around 2001. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant in the name of the Defendant around 2004.

Plaintiff

After concluding the first lease contract with the purport of leasing the instant store to the Defendant, the said contract has been renewed or extended several times, and the lease deposit continues to be maintained at KRW 20,00,000, while the monthly rent seems to have been changed from KRW 1.3 million to KRW 2.2 million.

Around January 2018, around 2018, the Defendant and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement of KRW 20,000,000 for monthly rent of KRW 3,200,000 (payment on February 2 of each month) and two years from January 3, 2018 to January 2, 2020 (see evidence 1 of this case; hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On October 10, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his/her intent to refuse renewal under the instant contract by content-certified mail and on October 10, 2020

2. Since the contract of this case expired due to the expiration of the contract period, the contract of this case was requested to restore the store of this case to the Plaintiff at the end of the contract and deliver the above content-certified mail to the Defendant.

C. The Defendant is operating a mutually named restaurant “D” at the instant store until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the contract of this case was terminated on January 2, 2020 after the expiration of the period, and the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff also sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent from April 2, 2020 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store.