1. Of the counterclaims, the portion of the claim seeking the payment of KRW 4,500,000 and damages for delay.

1. Although the lease contract concluded on April 13, 201 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages and the delivery of each of the instant real estate on the ground that the Defendant occupied and used each of the instant real estate, which is the object of continuous lease even thereafter, without title. The Defendant filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent already paid on the ground that the said lease contract was null and void due to a counterclaim, and the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages on the ground that the Plaintiff did not perform the claim for compensation on the ground that the Plaintiff did not provide the Defendant with cooperation necessary to register the land in the farmland ledger as set forth in attached Tables 1, 2, and 4. The Plaintiff’s claim for counterclaim was accepted in the first instance trial and all of the Defendant’

In this regard, only the defendant filed an appeal, and the court prior to the remanded the part of the appeal concerning the defendant's principal lawsuit and the part concerning the claim for return of unjust enrichment in the counterclaim, respectively, and dismissed the remaining appeal concerning the defendant's remaining appeal and counterclaim.

On the other hand, both the plaintiff and the defendant filed an appeal. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the part against the plaintiff on the counterclaim in the judgment prior to the remand, dismissed the defendant's appeal, and dismissed the remainder of the defendant's appeal.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the part concerning the claim for damages among the defendant's counterclaim are separately determined by the above Supreme Court decision, the scope of trial after the remand is limited to the part concerning the claim for return of unjust enrichment among the defendant's counterclaim.

2. Basic facts

A. On April 13, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the lease of each of the instant real estate owned by the Defendant, setting the period from April 13, 201 to April 12, 2013, and at 30,000 mar of rice with annual rent (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).