1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver attached real property;

B. Attached real estate from May 9, 2015.

1. As to the cause of claim

A. On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff, under the brokerage of a licensed real estate agent C, set the attached real estate (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the Defendant as the leased period from December 29, 2014 to March 28, 2015 (three months), the deposit amount of KRW 1,00,000, and the rent of KRW 600,000 (three months), and received KRW 1,000,000 from the Defendant on April 11, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 (the certificate of use, the defendant's signature, and there is no dispute over the part of the defendant's signature, the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to be established. The defendant asserts that only signed in blank, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), Gap evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Since the expiration of the lease term, the Defendant delivered the instant apartment to the Plaintiff. From May 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for unjust enrichment from May 9, 2015 to 273,333 won (200,000 won x 1/30 days x 41 days) of the remainder deposit (30,000 - refund 300,000-electric charge - 23,760 - gas charge 409,250). The Plaintiff filed a claim for unjust enrichment from May 9, 2015, from March 29, 2015 to May 8, 2015.

Until the completion date of delivery of the apartment in this case, there is a duty to pay unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 200,000 per month.

2. As to the defendant's argument

A. 1) The allegation that the Plaintiff is entitled to lease does not have the right to lease the apartment of this case entrusted to an international asset trust company, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unjustifiable. 2) The Plaintiff’s claim is not a fact that the lessor’s ownership of the object under the lease agreement was not a requirement, but a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent is owned by another person.