1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) entry in the Schedule 72,802,979 and annexed Schedules;

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 2008, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter the instant real estate) to the Defendant as KRW 40,000,00, monthly rent of KRW 450,000 (Additional Tax) (hereinafter the instant lease agreement) (hereinafter the “instant lease agreement”). In the context of the special agreement on the said lease agreement, the following is stated: “The entertainment property tax shall be paid separately” and “management expenses shall be in accordance with the regulations on commercial buildings.”

B. The Defendant unpaid monthly rent on several occasions, and on November 7, 2016, notified the Defendant that the lease contract was terminated on the grounds of a prolonged delay in monthly rent and management expenses.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (i) The plaintiff, ① since the lease contract of this case was terminated on the ground of the defendant's default, the defendant should deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff. ② The defendant paid only KRW 602,330,353 (attached Table 2) out of the total amount of 684,195,362 (attached Table 1), and the unpaid balance shall be paid KRW 81,865,009 (attached Table 2). ③ The defendant asserts that the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 4,950,00 per month should be refunded to the plaintiff until he delivers the real estate of this case.

D. As to the claim of the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s claim for unjust enrichment was extinguished on November 24, 2013 when three years elapsed retroactively from the date of filing the lawsuit in this case, since the claim of the Plaintiff was subject to the short-term extinctive prescription provision of three years, such as management expenses, etc., and the claim for unjust enrichment was rejected since the Plaintiff did not use or benefit from the instant real estate from the time of filing the lawsuit in this case.