1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the part ordering performance under paragraph (2) shall be revoked.

2...

1. As to this part of the facts admitted, the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The third lease contract of this case for the delivery of the instant store was terminated by the notice of termination on May 3, 2018 on the ground that the Defendant was in arrears at least three occasions, or by the Supreme Court Decision 2019Da241752 Decided July 3, 2019, which stated the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination of the lease contract, was served on the Defendant on July 3, 2019, and the Defendant terminated on October 31, 2018. As such, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the amount of the rent that was unpaid or the unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent or the rent, which was paid after April 2017 and January 4, 2018 under the third lease contract of this case, and thus, the amount of the rent that was paid to the Plaintiff as KRW 3600,000 and KRW 60,000 from August 2018.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant lease agreement’s refusal to pay rent following the Plaintiff’s obstruction of use includes not only the first floor of the instant building, but also the entire land of the instant case. From August 2016, the Plaintiff obstructed the Plaintiff from using the instant land as the parking lot for the instant store. Accordingly, the Defendant did not pay rent for the leased object as it was impossible to use and benefit from the leased object according to the purpose of each of the instant lease agreements. As such, the Plaintiff’s intention of termination on the ground of the instant lease in arrears is inappropriate, and the Defendant is not obliged to pay the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent. 2) Even if the third lease agreement’s renewal period of the instant third lease agreement expires on October 31, 2018, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent.