1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,571,240 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 9, 2015 to October 13, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) stipulating that “The lease deposit amount of KRW 195,000,000,000 per annum of reinforced concrete building 180,000 square meters on the ground of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and 330 square meters under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) was set up between the Defendant and the Defendant, stating that “The lessee shall follow the 17-meter radius of the building after the completion of the building and set up a warehouse of less than 50,00 square meters in distance from the retaining wall (hereinafter “instant warehouse”).

B. Upon entering into the instant lease agreement, the Defendant knew that the Plaintiff operated a bicycle store in the instant building, and the Plaintiff received delivery of the instant building and operated a bicycle store on the date of concluding the lease agreement.

C. The instant building was completed on March 31, 2014 and used. D.

The Defendant sold the instant building to D on April 29, 2015 without constructing the instant warehouse.

E. The sum of the rent that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant is KRW 21 million (=1.5 million per month x 14 months).

F. When it is assumed that the warehouse of this case was constructed, the size is 95.2 square meters. The rent is 976,820 won per month if it is assumed that there is no deposit for lease, and 195,00,000 won per month if there is a deposit for lease, and 464,270 won per month if it is assumed that there is no deposit for lease, and 195,000 won for lease deposit is divided into 180.25 square meters in the size of the store and 95.2 square meters in the size of the warehouse, and the lease deposit corresponding to the warehouse of this case is assumed to be 60

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 evidence, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, the result of the court's entrustment of appraisal of rent and fact-finding, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff Defendant did not perform the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement, which set the warehouse of the instant case after the completion of the construction of the instant building.

Therefore, the Defendant’s default or return of unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.