1. The Defendant, from August 20, 201 to August 20, 2013, is 65 square meters from the Plaintiff’s 20,000 square meters.

1. Determination as to the claim of unjust enrichment equivalent to the delivery of the second floor of this case and the rent or rent of this case

A. The facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings and arguments in the statements or videos set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 7-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 10, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant, around December 5, 2012, leased the part of the second floor of this case from the plaintiff during the lease deposit with the end of 20,000,000,40,000,000, and the period of February 20, 2014. The above lease deposit was paid to the plaintiff, and the above part of the second floor of this case was delivered to the plaintiff. However, the defendant did not pay the plaintiff the second floor of this case from August 20, 2013 to the second floor of this case. Meanwhile, the defendant can be acknowledged that the defendant occupied and used the second floor of this case by sub-lease it to a third party as of the closing date of pleadings in this case.

B. According to the above facts, the above lease contract was terminated upon delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case stating the defendant's declaration of termination on the ground of delinquency in rent. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the part on the second floor of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are other special circumstances. 2) The defendant is obliged to deliver the part on the second floor of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant cannot deliver the part on the second floor of this case to the plaintiff before receiving a refund of KRW 20,000,000 from the plaintiff.

(See the Defendant’s reply and the legal brief dated September 22, 2015). In the event that a lease contract is terminated, the lessee’s duty to deliver the object and the lessor’s duty to return the lease deposit are in a simultaneous performance relationship. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 to the second floor of this case, and the fact that the lease contract is terminated as seen earlier.

On the other hand, however, the overdue charge occurred after the termination of the lease contract until the delivery of the object.