1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the 3,309 square meters in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu’s 2,2,3,4,5,6, and 1 each of the annexed drawings.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 27, 2016, the Plaintiff, among the 3,309 square meters in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu’s land for B, the number of pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 attached drawings among the 3,309 square meters in common, is up to the annual rent of 54,645,230 square meters (including value-added tax) connected to the Defendant in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1, as follows:

Article 14 (Return of Rental Property) The defendant shall return the leased property to its original state in the presence of the plaintiff where the lease period expires or the contract is terminated or terminated.

Article 15 (Collection of Unauthorized Rent upon Non-performance of Duty)

1. Where the defendant fails to perform his/her duty under Article 14, he/she shall pay an amount equivalent to 120/100 of the rent in addition to the amount equivalent to the rent under the lease contract;

B. On January 11, 2017, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant his/her intent not to renew the instant lease, and requested to deliver the instant building four times from March 23, 2017 to July 6, 2017, but the Defendant did not deliver the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the lease of this case terminated on February 6, 2017, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of 5,464,523 won per month, which is the amount equivalent to the unauthorized user fee based on the agreement, from May 1, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case (i.e., annual rent 54,645,230 x 1.2 x 1/12).

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should receive damages equivalent to the premium under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, but the Defendant arranged for a new lessee from three months before the lease term expires until the termination of the lease.