1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the second floor of the building listed in the separate sheet, each point is indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. Giving benefits in return of unjust enrichment on the ground that a part of the building was benefiting without any legal ground for partial dismissal, refers to the substantial benefit. Thus, in cases where a lessee continuously occupied the leased building after the lease contract relationship was terminated, but it was not realized as the lessee did not use or make profit from the leased building according to the original purpose of the lease contract, even if the lessor suffered losses, the lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment does not constitute a contract for the lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment. The same holds true even if the lessee did not use or make profit from the leased building or

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da8554 Decided July 10, 1998. The Plaintiff’s assertion seeking the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent after June 24, 2017 is without merit, on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant uses and benefits from the real estate stated in the order after June 24, 2017, following the date on which the lease contract is terminated by serving a duplicate copy of the complaint of this case.

[Therefore, the overdue rent from April 1, 2017 to June 23, 2017 is KRW 218,013 (=78,800 x 23/30), and if the sum of the overdue rent from September 30, 2016 to March 31, 2017 exceeds KRW 480,350, the sum of the overdue rent to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is 698,363 won (=218,013 won).