1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 461,095,890 on August 2018.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is dismissed or added, shall be deleted from 2 pages 12 and 13.

On the third and fifth sides of the judgment of the first instance, the term "the instant lease agreement" is concluded as "the above lease agreement concluded".

"140,000,000 won" in the fourth 10th 4th son of the first instance judgment shall be "140,000,000 won".

The 8th 2nd 7th 2nd 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 9th 9th 21st 201st 3th 10th 3th 201st 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 10th 15th 15th 1st 10th 10th 3th 2016.

“The obligation to pay damages for delay from August 6, 2016.”

The following is added between the 13th and 11th of the first instance judgment. Even if a basic contract constitutes a commercial activity, a claim for return of unjust enrichment related thereto arises pursuant to the provisions of a law, not a juristic act. Therefore, barring any special circumstance to deem that there is a need to be promptly resolved to the same extent as that of a commercial transaction, it is reasonable to deem that the period of extinctive prescription for ten years, rather than the five-year commercial extinctive prescription period, is applicable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da64957, 64964, Apr. 8, 2003; 2009Da31871, Oct. 29, 201; 2010Da3276, Oct. 14, 2010; 2012Da461461, Apr. 16, 2012).