1. The Defendant, from the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the Plaintiff (Appointeds) to the 2,088,750 won, buildings from September 3, 2015 to the following.

1. The Plaintiffs, on August 5, 2014, leased the building indicated in the orders (C; hereinafter “instant store”) owned by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant to KRW 15 million, monthly rent of KRW 1650,00 (including value-added tax, each 20th day of each month), and the Plaintiffs were in arrears on the grounds that they were in arrears on at least two occasions from November 2014 (Article 2 of the Special Agreement) and notified the Defendant of the termination of the said lease by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and the Defendant continues to operate the business at the above store up to the present day, but the fact that there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties did not intend to maintain the said lease agreement, can be acknowledged by viewing the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in the evidence No. 1 through No. 4 and No. 7, and No. 2.

According to the above facts, since the above lease was terminated by termination, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiffs and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by the completion date of delivery.

2. On the judgment of the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not have an obligation to pay rent or unjust enrichment during the period of occupation as a result of removal of the illegal building part among the instant stores for the purpose of the lease agreement, and that the Defendant did not have an obligation to pay rent or unjust enrichment during the period of occupation. Moreover, the said deposit amount of KRW 15 million is simultaneously discharged.

In relation to the impossibility of use and profit-making and the reduction of rent, the duty of a lessor to allow a lessee to use and profit from an object in a false lease agreement and the lessee’s duty to pay rent is in relation to each other. As to the instant case, it was illegally extended by a previous lessee, who is not the Defendant, for the size of 1/4 of the total size of the building at the instant store and about 30.9 square meters ( around 36 square meters). The fact that the Defendant’s removal from the detection and control of an administrative agency during the lease term of the Defendant was nonexistent between the parties or between the parties.