1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list, and deliver the said real estate from July 10, 2014.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the fact that the plaintiff returned the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on July 9, 2013 to the defendant on July 9, 2013, KRW 2,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 250,000 (annual rent of KRW 3,000,000), and the lease term of KRW 2,00,00,000 as of July 9, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”); the plaintiff returned the lease deposit to the defendant on July 17, 2014; the defendant may, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s request, recognize the fact that the building has been occupied until now; and the rent after July 10, 2014 is ratified as the same amount.

Therefore, inasmuch as the instant lease agreement has expired on July 9, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 250,000 per month from July 10, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building as unjust enrichment.

2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to be impossible to deliver the building of this case until the plaintiff is fully refunded the down payment, director's expenses, etc. of a separate real estate. However, it is unclear whether any legal relationship exists between a separate real estate contract and the lease contract of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant'

The defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.