1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 77,438,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 5, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On June 11, 2015, the Defendant completed a report to the competent authority on a rural bed and fishing village bed and fishing village bed and fishing village bed and operated in the instant building (hereinafter “instant business”).

The Plaintiff paid KRW 90,00,000 to the Defendant for operating funds around July 2015, as well as KRW 47,000 from October 2015 to April 2016. The Defendant sent the Plaintiff the details of the income and expenditure related to the instant business from July 2015 to July 2016.

C. On June 28, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the delegation agreement on the instant business through the certification of the content that “any substantial difference exists between the actual sales and the reported sales.”

On June 30, 2017, the Defendant delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including additional evidence), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the evidence and the purport of the entire argument as seen above, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the original Defendant for the purpose of delegating the management of the instant business, and lawfully terminated the delegation contract.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, which was after the Plaintiff notified the termination of the delegation contract for the instant business with content certification, to the Plaintiff from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017.

B. Furthermore, we examine the scope of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendant.

In ordinary, the profit gained by occupying another person's building shall be limited to the profit which the defendant equivalent to the rent does not reach the actual amount equivalent to the rent as a result of running the business in the building of this case.