1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,420,00 and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from April 15, 2016 to December 14, 2016, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 12, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 20 million and monthly rent of KRW 20 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with regard to D frequency held in the East Sea C (hereinafter “instant store”). On August 2003, the Plaintiff changed the monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million and KRW 1.25 million around March 2008, respectively.

B. The instant lease agreement was terminated on May 16, 2015, and the Defendant delivered the instant store to the Plaintiff around June 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) After the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant used and profit from the instant store until August 16, 2015. The Plaintiff’s allegation is based on: (a) the rent incurred from June 16, 201 to August 16, 201; and (b) the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent (hereinafter “rent, etc.”) accrued from June 16, 201 to August 16, 2015.

(2) Of KRW 245,00, KRW 221,580,000, the Defendant paid KRW 221,580,000 to the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Defendant did not pay KRW 10,000,000, out of the deposit stipulated in the instant lease agreement, and thus, is obligated to pay KRW 6,901,369 for delay damages incurred from July 31, 2001 to May 16, 2015. The Defendant also demanded the Plaintiff to pay KRW 23,420,00 (= KRW 245,00,000 - KRW 221,580,00) for delay damages, and KRW 6,901,369, KRW 321,369, KRW 321,369, and KRW 329,000 for delay damages, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 231,236,296.

Therefore, there is no unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent during the three-month period from May 16, 2015 to August 16, 2015 when the instant lease contract was terminated.

In addition, the plaintiff was paid the difference.