1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 218,563,920.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Judgment by public notice on the basis of recognition (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Part concerning partial dismissal

A. Benefits in return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the lessee took advantage of the benefit without any legal ground in the relevant legal doctrine refers to the substantial benefit. As such, in a case where, even after the lease contract relationship was terminated, the lessee continued to possess the leased building part even after the lease contract relationship was terminated, and thus, the lessee did not obtain substantial benefits due to the failure to use it or make profits according to

Even if a lessee’s return of unjust enrichment is not established, it is also true even if the lessee failed to use or benefit from the leased building due to the lessee’s circumstances, or the lessee failed to remove his/her facility.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da8554 delivered on July 10, 1988, etc.). B.

In the instant case, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) was terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination around October 23, 2014, and the Defendant issued the key of the building indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Plaintiff on July 15, 2017. As from July 16, 2017, the Defendant appears to have not actually used and profit from the instant building, the part seeking the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from July 16, 2017 upon the Plaintiff’s request is rejected.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 8 and all pleadings, the amount of late rent and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from July 15, 2017, which was delivered to the plaintiff from the next day to July 15, 2017, which was delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant until the termination of the lease contract of this case, equivalent to the amount of unjust enrichment from July 201, 207, shall be the amount of the monthly rent.