1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, in addition to the addition as follows.

The Plaintiff asserts that “The Plaintiff ought to return unjust enrichment from the use and profit-making of the instant factory until August 31, 2018, which is the time when the Defendant delivered the instant portion of the factory. The Plaintiff and the Defendant completed the settlement of overdue rent by August 13, 2018 through the settlement agreement of the instant case as seen earlier. As such, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, without further review. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on unjust enrichment from August 14, 2018 to August 31, 2018, and even if the Defendant delivered the instant portion of the factory to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2018, the benefits in return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the leased building continued to exist even after the termination of the lease agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff did not assert that the Plaintiff did not gain profit-making from the original purpose of the lease agreement from August 14, 2018 to August 31, 2018.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion.