1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. At the same time, the Plaintiff received KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff, real estate stated in the attached Table.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (Partial number omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as to India and the claim for unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff’s use, occupation, and use of real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) which are fishery harbor facilities prescribed in subparagraph 5 (c) of Article 2 of the Fishing Villages and Fishery Harbors Act and the overall purport of the pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s lease of the instant real estate from January 201 to the Defendant from January 201, at the latest, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to the Defendant from March 20, 201, and several extension contracts were concluded several times on March 20, 2018, and extended the lease agreement by setting the lease agreement as of December 31, 2018.

According to the above facts, the lease contract on the instant building was terminated on December 31, 2018, barring any special circumstances, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from January 1, 2020 to the delivery date of the said real estate, which was sought by the Plaintiff after the termination of the lease contract.

However, the Plaintiff calculated unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent amount at the rate of KRW 6.5 million per month, and according to the Plaintiff’s certificate No. 7, it can be acknowledged that D was awarded a successful bid of KRW 20 million per month and KRW 6.50 million per month at the Plaintiff’s bidding of fishery harbor facilities on December 22, 2018. However, it is difficult to confirm that the objective rent amount of the instant building exceeds KRW 6.50,00 per month, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the amount equivalent to the rent exceeds KRW 300,000 per month paid by the Defendant.

Of the Plaintiff’s assertion on unjust enrichment claim, the part exceeding the amount calculated as KRW 300,00 per month is without merit.

B. According to the results of the appraisal commission of Gap evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, and 3 as to the removal claim, the building site of this case is one of the building site of this court.