1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall be the plaintiff and the building indicated in the attached list 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff leased and constructed a building on the pertinent land as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”). On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the instant building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) from November 10, 2014 to February 10, 2015.

Around that time, the Defendant paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff, and occupied and used the instant building.

B. The Defendant paid KRW 9 million between the three months from November 10, 2014, which is the date of the instant lease agreement, to February 10, 2015, which is the expiration date of the lease term (i.e., the settlement agreement that KRW 5 million should be deducted from the lease deposit), but without paying the subsequent rent, continued to occupy the instant building until the date of the closure of pleadings in the trial.

In addition, the Defendant paid KRW 5,582,200, as shown in the attached Table of the deposit details of electrical charges, out of KRW 5,659,230 from March 2015 to January 2017 imposed on the instant building, as shown in the attached table of electrical charges (=5,659,230 - 5,582,200) and did not pay the remainder of the electric charges (=5,659,230 - 5,582,200).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence 6-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, as stated in the purport of the claim, seek against the Defendant the delivery of the building of this case and the payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to rents and unpaid electric charges.

In light of the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated due to the expiration of the period of validity, the defendant delivers the building of this case to the plaintiff, and from February 2015 to February 2016.