1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) filed in this Court against the Plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a clan whose members are descendants of the Em Union, and the defendant is the plaintiff's clan member.

On October 30, 1996, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) by setting the deposit amount of KRW 20 million and the lease period of KRW 12 months from October 30, 1996.

The plaintiff delivered the real estate of this case to the defendant around that time, and the lease was implicitly renewed.

On August 11, 2013, the Plaintiff held a clan general meeting and passed a resolution to file a lawsuit on the family property including the refusal to renew the lease of the instant real estate and the filing of the extradition lawsuit.

On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the lease within six months of the termination of the lease.

On the other hand, if the lease deposit is 15 million won, from November 1, 2016, the appropriate rent for the real estate in this case is 370,000 won per month.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 7 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the appraisal result of the first instance appraiser D, and the ground for claim of judgment as to the main claim for judgment as to the whole purport of the pleadings, the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated on October 30, 2016. Nevertheless, the defendant occupies the instant real estate and uses it for profit. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the plaintiff, and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the ratio of KRW 370,000 per month from November 1, 2016 to the delivery date of the instant real estate.

(3) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid the deposit amount of KRW 20 million, but there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant paid the deposit of KRW 20 million. As such, the Defendant’s assertion is based on the calculation of the rent only on KRW 15 million as the Plaintiff’s holders. The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the return of the cost of replacing the floor, pipe and boiler, and exhauster board.