1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 22, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the term of KRW 30,000,000,000 per lease deposit, KRW 1,000 per month of rent, and period of lease from November 8, 2013 to December 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On November 8, 2013, the Defendant occupied and used the instant building upon delivery from the Plaintiff, and transferred the instant building to the Plaintiff around November 2015.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant deposited KRW 9 million in total (including value added tax on the monthly rent) from February 2015 to October 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that, although the contract of this case was terminated on December 31, 2014 due to the expiration of the period of validity on December 31, 2014, the defendant continued to occupy and use the building of this case without returning it, the defendant shall return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the plaintiff. Since the defendant deposited only KRW 1,000,000 per month out of the monthly amount equivalent to the rent of the building of this case, 89,000 won [the difference = (1810,00 won - one million won)] x 11 months (from January 2015 to November 2015) and delay damages therefrom, the plaintiff asserts that he/she is obligated to pay the rent of this case.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the lease contract of this case is implicitly renewed, and the defendant is merely obligated to pay the rent of one million won per month, so it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

B. As seen earlier, determination 1 on whether the term of lease stipulated in the instant lease agreement expired or not, the fact that the term of lease under the instant lease agreement expired on December 31, 2014 is recognized.

Furthermore, as to whether the instant lease contract has been implicitly renewed, this case’s lease is examined.