1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and all the plaintiff's claims corresponding to the revocation part shall be revoked.

1. The court of first instance accepted the part of the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the delivery of the building of this case to the completion of delivery of the building of this case among the Plaintiff’s claims, ① the unpaid part of the damages due to the extension of the building of this case, ② the unpaid part of the damages due to the extension of the building of this case, ③ the unpaid part of the damages due to the extension of the building of this case, ④ the amount of the rent from October 1, 2016 to the completion of delivery of the building of this case, ⑤ the Defendant appealed the part of the claim for delayed management expenses and future management expenses, and only the Defendant appealed the appeal. The Plaintiff appealed the claim for the alteration of the claim and the cause of the claim from the previous purport of the claim of this case to the court

In the appellate court that only the defendant appealed, the plaintiff maintained the claim for the part of the above-mentioned and future management expenses that were dismissed in the first instance court, to the extent that they were disadvantageous to the defendant.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of the trial court is ① the delivery of the building of this case, ③ the overdue rent of the plaintiff, ④ unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from October 1, 2016 to the completion of delivery of the building of this case, ⑤ the delayed management expenses and future management expenses.

2. Basic facts

A. On May 23, 2008, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 5,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 440,000 (including value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and the Defendant, upon delivery, uses and occupies the instant building as the Enice Center.

B. On June 20, 2012, the Defendant remitted KRW 5,000,00 to one bank account under the Plaintiff’s name C, and the Plaintiff prepared the loan certificate (Evidence B No. 4). However, the loan certificate does not contain any other content as to the nominal receipt, in addition to the amount.

C. As a result of the Plaintiff’s settlement from May 2008 to September 30, 2016, the Defendant determined that the monthly rent of KRW 1,760,000 was overdue, and accordingly, the Plaintiff did not delay the monthly rent of KRW 4 months.