1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the first floor of the building listed in the separate sheet, each point of the attached sheet No. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 4.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 13, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant for the lease deposit of KRW 2 million, monthly rent of KRW 550,00 (including additional tax, payment on March 13, 2015), from March 13, 2013 to March 13, 2015 (hereinafter in this case, the instant lease contract) with regard to the size of 20,000 square meters in the office of (B) part of the building (hereinafter “the instant building”) connected in sequence 4,5,6,7, and 4 of the attached drawings among the first floor of the building indicated in the attached list with the Defendant. After receiving KRW 2 million from the Defendant, the Plaintiff transferred the instant building to the Defendant on March 13, 2015.

B. Since April 14, 2013, the Defendant delayed payment of the rent.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff expressed his intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent for more than two years by serving the duplicate of the instant complaint.

As of the date of closing argument of this case, the defendant occupies, uses, and benefits the building of this case as before.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim for extradition, the instant lease agreement was duly terminated and terminated on March 27, 2015, on which the copy of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the ground of rent delay for at least two years, was delivered to the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff due to restitution to its original state.

B. The judgment on the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent is as seen earlier, since the defendant used the building of this case as the previous one even after the termination of the lease contract of this case, it shall be deemed that the defendant used the building of this case without any legal ground and benefiting therefrom, and thereby inflicted damage on the plaintiff. The amount of such benefit is equivalent to the rent, and the plaintiff shall be entitled to receive the benefit.