1. The Defendant’s KRW 222,770,956 among the Plaintiff and KRW 181,562,801 among the Plaintiff, shall be KRW 41,208,155 from January 12, 2013.

(a)be obligated to return;

Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 2-2 and evidence No. 2-7 and evidence No. 8 of evidence No. 2-2, the rent from August 2012 to December 2012 was 3.520,000 won, and the aggregate of management fees No. 103 unpaid by the Plaintiff from November 2012 to May 24, 2013 = 1,986,684 won = the aggregate of the unpaid management expenses from November 2012 to March 2013 = 1,619,125 won in April 2013, 2013, calculated the average management expenses from April 1, 2013, when the Plaintiff finished its business under subparagraph 103.

5. The fact that management expenses up to 24.20,389 won 207,170 won * 24/31) are management expenses up to 160,389 * 207,170 won * 24/31) and the fact that the aggregate of management expenses up to 12.1 November, 2012 and management expenses up to 3,270,533 can be recognized. The rent of D building 103 is confirmed to be the same amount even after December 2, 2012, barring special circumstances, and thus, the amount of unjust enrichment that should be deducted from the lease deposit is 22,062,378 won [=16,805,161 won [i.e., KRW 3,520,00 * 4,520,520 * 20,520,313,136,136,2816] and the remainder of the management expenses up to 20,13636,136

Meanwhile, the damage suffered by a lessor due to a delay in the duty to restore the lessee upon the termination of the lease is not equivalent to the rent from the date of delay until the date when the lessor actually completed the restoration, but the amount equivalent to the rent from the date when the lessor could recover

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da15104 delivered on December 21, 199). In light of the contents of the duty to restore the Plaintiff’s nonperformance as seen earlier and the content and cost of construction corresponding thereto, the construction period for restitution is deemed not to exceed five days, and thus, the Plaintiff’s duty to restore is delayed.