1. The Defendant’s monthly from KRW 34,383,86 to KRW 34,386 from July 1, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the building indicated in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 30, 2012, the Plaintiff leased a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million (excluding value-added tax), and the lease period of August 30, 2013.

The plaintiff received the lease deposit from the defendant and delivered the building to the defendant at that time, and the defendant operated the restaurant at that time.

B. On September 1, 2013, after the lease term expires, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the lease, but continues to operate the restaurant in the instant building until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 and 4 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on requests for the delivery of a building

A. (i) The judgment on the cause of the claim (i) that the Defendant continued to use and benefit from the leased property even after the expiration of the lease term and notified the termination of the contract after the expiration of 11 days, as seen earlier. Therefore, the lease was implicitly renewed after the expiration of the lease term, and the lessee was terminated at the expiration of one month after the termination of the lease term.

The Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit and the deduction of unjust enrichment, while the Plaintiff received lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million from the Defendant at the time of the contract, and the Defendant occupied and used the instant building for restaurant purposes after the termination of the lease as seen earlier.

As such, the Defendant gains the profit from occupying and using a building, and thereby causes damages equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff, a lessor.

As such, it is obligated to return this to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the defendant the balance after deducting unjust enrichment from the above lease deposit to the delivery date of the building of this case, which is the defendant's objection.