1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to construct the second floor detached house building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, which owned by the Plaintiff by bearing the construction cost. The Defendant performed the said construction from around that time to August 2005 and completed the construction of the instant building, and on September 16, 2005, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. From the time when the construction of the building was completed, the Defendant occupied and used the second floor of the building of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement for the Defendant to use the second floor of the instant building for five (5) years from the completion date of the construction of the instant building. The lease agreement was terminated due to the expiration date of the period, and the Defendant is in arrears of KRW 31,781,840 in total from August 10, 2005 to October 30, 2013, and KRW 33,952 in total from October 31, 2013 to October 31, 2013. Thus, the Defendant’s claim of KRW 37,036,730 in total from the construction cost invested in the new construction of the instant building set off the Defendant’s loan of KRW 20,00,000 in total against the Defendant’s loan of KRW 17,036,730 in total.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated by deducting the monthly rent or the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the aforesaid KRW 17,036,730 to October 31, 2013 from the delivery date of the above second floor from the rate of KRW 33,952 per month, and to deliver the second floor of the instant building to the Plaintiff at the same time, and to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 31,781,840 until October 30, 2013.

3. Determination

A. As to the determination of the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent or rent and whether the lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.