1. The Defendants shall also indicate the attached building status on the land floor of the building listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff (i), (ii), (iii) and (iii).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) designated and leased to the Defendants the portion of 52.08 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant leased portion”) connected with each point of (i), (b), (c), (d), (iv) and (i) the attached Table among the land strata of the building listed in the attached Table owned by the Defendants as the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000,000 for the rent month (payment on the 10th of each month thereafter).

B. The Defendants agreed to terminate the said lease agreement with the Plaintiff around May 2017, when paying only monthly rent without paying the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, and operating a restaurant in the instant leased premises.

C. From May 2017, the Defendants did not run a business with the equipment, etc. set up in the leased premises of this case and the door locked.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the above lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was terminated by agreement around May 2017. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the leased portion to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. The Plaintiff also sought unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from June 11, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the leased object of this case. Thus, unless the leased object is used and profit-making according to its original purpose, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff gains substantial profits. Thus, the lessee does not have the obligation to return unjust enrichment just because he/she continuously occupied the leased object.

[See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da14395, 2012Da14401, etc., supra] (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da14395, Jun. 11, 2017). However, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants used the leased portion after June 11, 2017 to obtain substantial benefits, the Defendants are not obliged to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.