The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On July 1, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant and the Plaintiff, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 2.24,00,000 won for the second floor and KRW 181,96 square meters for the underground room among the buildings listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”). From July 1, 201, the lease agreement was concluded with the period from July 1, 201 to July 24, 2011.

At the time of the conclusion of the above lease contract, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to issue a tax invoice on rent, etc. in the name of the defendant at the request of D, the representative of the defendant.

Since then, on October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the modification of the content that the Plaintiff and the Defendant, among the instant buildings, excluded the area of 181,96 square meters from the leased object from the leased object, to the amount of KRW 1,50,000 per month (excluding value-added tax).

However, the defendant does not pay rent from April 2019.

Therefore, the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract on the ground of the delinquency in rent and sent the content-certified mail to the Defendant, which seeks to deliver the second floor of 132.24m2 among the instant building on several occasions, but the Defendant is refusing to comply therewith.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff the second floor of 132.24 square meters among the instant building, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 1.65 million per month from April 17, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the said building.

2. On July 1, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the second floor of the instant building and the second floor of 132.24 square meters and the underground room of 181,96 square meters, and filed a claim for unjust enrichment against the Defendant on the premise that the party who entered into the modified contract on October 31, 2016 is the Defendant.

According to Gap evidence No. 3, between July 201 and April 2019, the plaintiff as the supplier, and the defendant as the supplier, and the defendant as the supplier.