1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon the Plaintiff’s request added at the trial court, the Defendant rendered February 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. On February 10, 2015, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3-1 and 2, the plaintiff sub-leaseed the real estate of this case to the defendant at least two times on February 10, 2015 by setting the deposit amount of KRW 20,00,000, and the period from February 26, 2015 to February 25, 2016 (hereinafter "the contract of this case"), the real estate of this case was delivered to the defendant on February 26, 2015, and the defendant paid two or more rents, and the defendant did not intend to renew the contract of this case before the expiration of the contract of this case, and the plaintiff can be found to have no intention to transfer the real estate of this case to the defendant on February 26, 2015 to the effect that he did not wish to transfer the real estate of this case to the defendant before the expiration of the contract of this case.

According to the above facts, since the contract of this case was terminated as the expiration date, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff and pay the plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 1,300,000 per month from February 26, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the real estate of this case.

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant building is owned by C, and the Plaintiff, who leased the instant real estate from C, sub-leased the instant real estate without C’s consent.

Even if the Plaintiff sub-leases the instant real estate to the Defendant without the consent of C, since the sub-lease contract for the instant real estate concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is valid, the Defendant, the sub-lessee, as the contract of this case is terminated, is the Plaintiff.