1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) order the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. As from January 19, 2015, the 4,393,650 won and the 4,393.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, the plaintiff shall lease the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") to the defendant on January 19, 2013 without a lease deposit, with the term of 250,000 won per month from January 19, 2013 to October 19, 2013. The above real estate was delivered around that time, and the above lease contract was implicitly renewed between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff 3,250,000 won in total for 13 months until January 18, 2015 (250,000 won x 13 months x 14,500 won in total, and the above lease contract of this case may be terminated at least 2,143,500 won in arrears.

I would like to say.

(Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had expressed his/her intent to terminate the pertinent lease contract upon proof of the content as of July 31, 2014 and September 15, 2014. However, there is no evidence to prove that each of the above content certification reached the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant lease contract was terminated by the content certification. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to order the Plaintiff to question the instant building, and to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of KRW 4,393,650 (3,250,143,650) calculated at the rate of KRW 250,00 per month from January 19, 2015 to the aforementioned order.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.