1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (a real estate lease contract, document prepared by E with the authority delegated by the defendant, and the authenticity is recognized), Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, on March 18, 2014, the plaintiff submitted to the defendant a lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,200,000 (including value-added tax) and the rent from April 1, 2014 to April 30, 2016, and the rent was exempted for 30 days, and the plaintiff delivered the above store to the defendant on April 1, 2014 (hereinafter the above lease contract referred to as "lease contract") and the defendant's declaration of intention to terminate the lease contract of this case from May 1, 2014 to April 20, 2014 to the court at the end of the second instance trial.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff as a performance of the duty to restore following the termination of the instant lease agreement.

B. As seen earlier, the fact that the Defendant did not pay the rent from May 1, 2014 to the fact that the judgment on the claim for the payment of rent, etc. was made is as follows. The fact that the Defendant occupied and used the instant store from May 1, 2014 to the date is not clearly disputed by the Defendant, and thus, it is deemed that the Defendant led to confession.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff rent or unjust enrichment from May 1, 2014 to the date of the completion of delivery of the instant store.

In ordinary cases, the amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate is the amount equivalent to the rent of the real estate.