1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the lower court ordered the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to pay more than KRW 58,064.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought from the Defendant for the delivery and overdue rent of the building stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant store”) and the payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, and the first instance court accepted the claim in its entirety.

On the other hand, the defendant appealed against the cited portion of the monetary payment claim and filed a counterclaim in this court.

Therefore, the part of the claim for overdue rent and unjust enrichment among the claims for principal lawsuit and only the counterclaim is subject to the judgment of this court, and only this part of the claim is to be judged.

2. Basic facts

A. On October 20, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the instant store to the Defendant for a two-year period from October 20, 2013 to October 19, 2015, with a deposit of KRW 5 million, KRW 350,000 per month (payment on October 20), and the lease period from October 20, 2013 to October 19, 2015.

(hereinafter “Lease of this case”). (b)

The Defendant paid 5 million won to the Plaintiff around that time, but did not pay to the Plaintiff the rent from March 20, 2015 to August 20, 2015.

C. On September 14, 2015, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant that the lease of this case was terminated on the grounds of the delinquency in rent for more than two years by mail proving the content thereof, and the mail certifying the content thereof reached the Defendant on September 15, 2015.

On August 2, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) executed the delivery of real estate to the instant store by designating the judgment of the first instance court of the provisional execution sentence against the Defendant as the executive title; and (b) executed compulsory execution against corporeal movables within the instant store on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Judgment on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the 1st judgment on the cause of the claim, the lease of this case was terminated on September 15, 2015 on the grounds of the Defendant’s two or more occasions of arrears in rent.

Thus, the defendant is the lessee from March 20, 2015, the following day after the plaintiff was paid rent to the plaintiff.