1. The defendant is the plaintiff successor.

(a) Indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1-1 of the first floor drawings of the underground floor of the building listed in the attached list;

1. Basic facts

A. On April 20, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with a deposit of KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 100,000, and period of lease from April 20, 2017 to April 19, 2019.

B. The Defendant paid the lease deposit to the Plaintiff and received the instant building delivery and carried on the party funeral business, and the monthly rent was overdue from November 2017.

(c)

On February 14, 2020, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract on the grounds of the termination of the lease contract term and the delinquency in rent, and send a certificate demanding the delivery of the instant building to the Defendant.

At that time, the above certification reached the defendant.

Nevertheless, as the Defendant did not deliver the instant building, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking unfair benefits equivalent to the delivery and rent of the instant building against the Defendant due to the expiration of the lease agreement.

(d)

On the other hand, on October 6, 2020, the Plaintiff sold the instant building to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Succession Intervenor”), and completed the registration of transfer of ownership to the Intervenor on October 12, 2020, with respect to the said building on October 6, 2020.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff sought unjust benefits equivalent to the transfer of the building of this case and the rent for the building of this case against the defendant based on ownership, but the plaintiff sold the building of this case to the succeeding intervenor during the course of the lawsuit of this case and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as seen above. Thus, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner of the building of this case is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claim by the successor.

A. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case has already expired, the defendant is the successor.