1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the claim for rent and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 22, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting a deposit of KRW 10 million, the lease period of KRW 10 million from April 22, 2017 to April 21, 2018 (12 months from April 22, 2017, and the rent of KRW 70,000,000,000,000 in attached drawings among the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The defendant paid 10 million won to the plaintiff on the same day.

B. On September 3, 2017, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 700,000 as rent, in addition to the payment of rent of KRW 700,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground for the plaintiff's main claim

A. According to the fact that the part on the claim for the unpaid rent under the instant lease agreement was acknowledged, the instant lease agreement terminated on April 21, 2018 as the expiration of the period.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay 3.5 million won, as sought by the Plaintiff, among the remaining rent of KRW 7.7 million (i.e., KRW 8., KRW 7 million - KRW 7.7 million - KRW 7 million) that remains after deducting the rent of a person who was paid by the Plaintiff from the last day of the instant lease agreement period (i.e., KRW 7., KRW 7 million).

B. The portion of return of unjust enrichment was examined as part of the return of unjust enrichment, and the gain in return of unjust enrichment on the ground that it was benefiting without legal grounds means the substantial benefit. Thus, in a case where the lessee continued possession of the leased building even after the lease contract relationship was terminated, but it was not able to obtain substantial benefit due to the failure to use or make profit in accordance with the original purpose of the lease contract, then

Even if a lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da50526, Mar. 28, 1995), the Defendant raises an objection.