The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.

The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1.

1. The reasoning for this part of the facts of recognition is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated on May 10, 2019 and terminated.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, a lessee, is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff as the lessor, and is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the overdue rent and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent incurred until the time the instant house is transferred.

B. Furthermore, as to the scope of overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to be paid by the Defendant, the Defendant was in arrears with payment from December 19, 2017, and barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff money calculated at the rate of KRW 300,000 per month from December 19, 207 to October 18, 2018 after deducting the overdue rent of KRW 3,00,000 (=30,000 per month x 10 months) from the overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the remaining overdue rent and ten (30,000 per month from October 19, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant house. Thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to recover the overdue rent of KRW 300,00 per month from November 9, 2018 to the return of the overdue rent and unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff within the scope of delay and unjust enrichment.

I would like to say.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion (1) The Defendant only lent only the name of the lessee under the instant lease agreement upon C’s request, and the actual lessee of the instant lease agreement is C and the person who possesses the instant house by paying C, thus, cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

② On October 3, 2018, C who occupied the instant house had already transferred the instant house to the Plaintiff.

③ Although the Defendant was involved, the instant house.