1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant object to the Defendant by setting annual rent of KRW 4,000,000, each of the land listed in the separate sheet and the pumps and greenhouses located on the ground thereof (hereinafter “instant object”).

B. On January 11, 2016, the Defendant remitted KRW 4,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s account.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 3 through 7 (if there is an additional number, including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties that the lease period of the instant object is from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017, and the Defendant gains profits from continuing to use and benefit from the instant object to June 4, 2016, which had been sold to another person even after the lease period expired, and thus, the Defendant calculated the monthly rent of KRW 33,33 (=4,00,000 x January 1/12, hereinafter the same shall apply) as the monthly rent of KRW 1,71,109 (=33,333 x (4,44/30 days) (hereinafter the same shall apply) equivalent to the monthly rent of the instant period.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not clearly state what he/she intends to claim for the return of unjust enrichment due to ownership or the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment due to use and profit after the termination of lease, the Plaintiff calculated the amount of claim based on the agreed rent of KRW 4 million with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the total amount of the aforementioned amount, which is the owner of a portion of shares in the attached Tables 2 through 5, appears to be the cause of claiming the return of unjust enrichment.

The defendant asserts that since the lease term of the object of this case is five years, the lease term of this case has not been terminated, and that the object of this case has not been used or profited from April 2017 upon the plaintiff's request.

B. (1) According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments and evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 5 and 6 of the term of lease Nos. 6, 7, and 5 and 6, the Defendant.