1. The part concerning the claim for extradition among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 21, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000 for the instant real estate owned by him/her as two years from December 21, 2012 to December 20, 2014, and around that time, handed over the instant real estate.

The above lease contract was renewed later, and its period was extended by December 20, 2016.

B. On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to renew the instant lease agreement, but the Defendant rejected.

On April 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) carried out all remaining houses except the freezing warehouse installed since the lease on April 20, 2017; and (b) handed over the instant real estate to the original state; and (c) handed over the instant real estate.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s delivery of the instant real estate, which had already been made by the Defendant, is unlawful as there is no legal interest in maintaining this part of the lawsuit.

3. Determination on the claim for unjust enrichment

A. The judgment on the cause of the claim is that the Defendant: (a) occupied and used the instant real estate even after the lease agreement was terminated on December 20, 2016; (b) obtained profit equivalent to the rent; and (c) thereby inflicted damages on the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate; and (d) accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from December 21, 2016 to April 20, 2017, the date of delivery of the instant real estate.

In accordance with subparagraph 1-1 of subparagraph 1 and the purport of the whole oral argument, it is reasonable to view the rent equivalent to the real estate of this case as KRW 500,000 per month.

(The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the monthly rent as KRW 600,000,00,000, and there is no other evidence to recognize it). The Defendant, barring special circumstances, shall be the Plaintiff.