The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding the claim for payment of money is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where one of the parties agrees to allow the other party to use and benefit from an object, and the other party agrees to pay the rent for it. Furthermore, the requirements for the establishment of the lessor to have ownership of and other rights to lease the object. Thus, even if the leased object is owned by the other party, barring special circumstances, such as a request for return of the object, a rent, or a corresponding payment, etc., even if the leased object is owned by the other party, the lessee is obligated to order the lessor to order the object and pay the rent for arrears until the end of the lease. Of course, the lessee is also obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of the real estate from the end of the lease to the completion

The above legal principle also applies to a lessee in a case where a lessee is sub-leased the leased object but the lease and sub-lease are terminated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da68290, Jun. 29, 2001; 2007Da21856, Aug. 23, 2007; 2007Da21856, 21863, etc.). Furthermore, in a case where the lessee becomes unable to allow the lessee to use the leased object or make profits due to the lessee’s demand for return of the leased object or payment of the amount thereof after the sub-lease was sub-leased, the obligation based on the sub-lease contract becomes impossible, and the lessee does not bear the obligation to pay the rent and return unjust enrichment thereafter due to the termination of the contract due to nonperformance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da3825, Sept. 24, 2009).