1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 26, 2018, the Plaintiff leased a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1100,000,000,000 from March 14, 2018 to March 13, 2020 (hereinafter “instant lease”). Around that time, the Defendant paid the instant lease deposit to the Plaintiff and operated a marina business in the instant building.

B. The Defendant did not pay monthly rent after July 1, 2018.

On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff's notice of "if the lease contract of this case is terminated if it is not paid within seven days, it reaches the defendant on November 30, 2018, and the defendant did not pay the unpaid rent even after receipt of the notice.

[Grounds for recognition] Items A and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts of recognition of the claim for extradition under paragraph (1), it is reasonable to deem that the instant lease agreement was terminated on December 8, 2018 by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff seeking return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from December 9, 2018, which is the day following the termination date of the instant lease agreement.

However, the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant gains a substantial benefit while using and earning the instant building from December 9, 2018, the following day after the termination date of the instant lease agreement, according to its original purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59481, Apr. 11, 2003). There is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(A) The Defendant’s domicile, etc. was served by public notice. This part of the assertion is not acceptable.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.