1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate indicated in the annex “real estate indication”;

(b) 1,321,538 won;

1. Indication of claims: It is as shown in the Attached Form “Cause of Claim”.

2. Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. Giving benefits for the return of unjust enrichment on the ground that a part of dismissal was benefiting without any legal ground. As such, in a case where a lessee continued possession of the leased building after the lease contract relationship was terminated, but no substantial benefits have been gained due to the failure to use it or make profits according to the original purpose of the lease contract, even if the lessor suffered losses, the lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment is not established, and the same holds true even if the lessee did not use or make profits from the leased building or did not take profits from the leased building due to the lessee’s circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da8554 Decided July 10, 1998). The Plaintiff’s assertion seeking return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent is without merit, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant, after March 21, 2015, uses and benefits from the real estate stated in the order after the date of termination of the lease contract by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case, pursuant to the original purpose of the lease contract.

[Therefore, the rent in arrears from December 1, 2014 to March 20, 2015 is 159,658 won (=43,800 won x 320/31), and if the sum of the unpaid management expenses and the rent in arrears from April 1, 2013 to November 30, 2014 exceeds 1,161,80 won, the sum of the rent in arrears to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is 1,321,538 won (=1,61,80 won 159,658 won)];