1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver one story 133.4 square meters of real estate listed in the attached list;

B. From October 21, 2016

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the 133.4 square meters of the 1st floor among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). From that time, the Defendant operated the instant real estate with the trade name “C” from that time.

B. On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the instant real estate with a lease deposit of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000, and the lease term of KRW 24 months (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Defendant, who entered into the instant real estate test construction, operated the main points by changing the name of “D” following the instant real estate construction.

(Change of trade name was made on February 19, 2014).

After the termination of the lease contract of this case, the Defendant paid all the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent until October 20, 2016 after the termination of the lease contract of this case. The Defendant has used and profit from the instant real estate until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, even after the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant occupied the instant real estate without delivering it to the present time, thereby obtaining unjust enrichment without any legal ground, and thereby, suffered losses to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the instant real estate.

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of unjust enrichment, it is reasonable to deem that unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the instant real estate is equivalent to KRW 1,200,000, monthly rent, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from October 20, 2016.