1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, each point is indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 1.

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. Giving benefits for the return of unjust enrichment on the ground that a part of dismissal was benefiting without any legal ground refers to the substantial benefit. Thus, in a case where, although a lessee continued to possess the leased building after the lease contract relationship was terminated, the lessee did not obtain substantial benefits because he did not use or make profit from the leased building according to the original purpose of the lease contract, even if such damage was incurred to the lessor, the lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment is not established. The same applies even if the lessee did not use or make profit from the leased building or the lessee did not take out

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da8554 Decided July 10, 1998). The Plaintiff’s assertion seeking the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent after May 19, 2016, is without merit, on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant, after May 19, 2016, uses or benefits from the real estate stated in the order after delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, pursuant to the original purpose of the lease agreement.

[The amount that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff is the amount of arrears 4,161,290 won from October 20, 2015 to May 18, 2016 [=60,000 won x (629/31)].