1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding 756,650 won shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to C by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, KRW 1.6 million per month, and the period from September 30, 2014 to September 30, 2016, and around that time, leased the said real estate to C.

B. C with the consent of the Plaintiff on March 11, 2016, sub-leaseed the instant real estate to the Defendant under the same conditions as the said lease agreement (hereinafter “sub-lease agreement”), and the Defendant was handed over the said real estate around that time.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s failure to pay electricity charges of KRW 119,070 and water rates of KRW 637,580, which are imposed on the said real estate.

Around September 2016, the Defendant removed main equipment, such as housework, from the store of this case, and the Plaintiff collected all the house fixtures neglected in the store of this case in accordance with the above judgment around April 2018, which was after the lower judgment was sentenced.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts of the determination on the unpaid electricity charges and the claim for water rates, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff unpaid electricity charges of KRW 756,650 (=19,070 water rates of KRW 637,580).

B. The benefit in return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the benefit was obtained without any legal ground to determine a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent refers to the substantial benefit. Thus, in a case where the lessee continued to possess the leased building even after the lease contract relationship was terminated, but the lessee did not obtain substantial benefit due to the failure to use or make profit in accordance with the original purpose of the lease contract, then the lessor suffered loss therefrom.

Even if a lessee’s return of unjust enrichment is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da50526, Mar. 28, 1995).