Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the part concerning the defendant's argument (2. b. 3) stated from 50th to 6th above of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) and (c) the part concerning the lease contract of this case is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; (b) in such a case, the defendant stated that the amount of unjust enrichment after the termination of the lease should be calculated as the amount equivalent to the agreed rent; and (c) in such a case, if the right to purchase the building was not recognized without any change in raising the land of this case, it shall be calculated as the basis for calculating the rent, and thus, it shall be deemed as the same. However, in the case of the land lease for the purpose of owning the building, the amount of rent to be returned to the lessee after the termination of the lease contract is equivalent to the actual rent at the time of purchase (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da1636160.