1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Determination on the grounds for both appeals

A. The Defendant’s grounds for appeal related to the instant sub-lease contract do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court as to whether the sub-lease is or not, and even if considering the evidence presented by the Defendant at the first instance court, which was examined by the evidence, the Defendant’s argument that the sub-lease under the instant sub-lease contract should be deemed the Plaintiff, on the premise that the sub-lease under the instant sub-lease contract should be deemed the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s decision of the first instance court that the said sub-lease contract was lawfully terminated on or after the end of January 2019 by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination is justifiable.

B. As to the scope of return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the Defendant’s rent, both parties’ grounds of appeal on this portion are different from the allegations in the first instance trial.

Even though the lessee continued to occupy the leased building area after the lease contract relationship was terminated, if the lessee did not gain any substantial benefit because he did not use or benefit from the leased building area according to the original purpose of the lease contract, the damage was caused to the lessor.

Even if a lessee’s return of unjust enrichment is not established, it is the same even if the lessee was unable to use or benefit from the leased building due to the lessee’s circumstances, or the lessee was not removed from his/her own facility

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da8554 Decided July 10, 1998, etc.). In light of all the evidence submitted up to the trial, the Defendant took an object, such as a house in the leased object after the completion of the instant sub-lease contract, and took advantage of the leased object from March 31, 2019 to March 31, 2019, and the Defendant took advantage of the leased object, the Defendant was obliged to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent. After that, the Defendant thereafter took place a locking device around August 28, 2019.