1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the second floor of 183.337 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached Form;

B. KRW 27,900,000 and May 15, 2015

1. Basic facts

A. A. On January 8, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 7,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 750,000 (30,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000, monthly rent of KRW 450,000, monthly rent of the first floor of this case, and KRW 15,000, monthly rent of the second floor of this case) with respect to the 1st floor of 189,937 square meters (hereinafter “the 1st floor of this case”) and the 2nd floor of 183,37 square meters (hereinafter “the 2nd floor of this case”) among the buildings indicated in the attached Table, and delivered the Defendant the 1 and 2nd floor of this case around January 15, 2008.

B. Since January 15, 2010, the instant lease agreement was terminated upon expiration of the period of validity on or around January 15, 2010, and the Defendant delivered the instant 1st floor store to the Plaintiff on or around January 30, 2010, but continued to occupy and use the instant 2nd floor store until now.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant second floor store to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances, and to pay the amount equivalent to KRW 27,900,000,00 in total for the 62-month unjust enrichment from April 14, 2015 to April 14, 2015, as sought by the Plaintiff (i.e., monthly rent KRW 450,000 to KRW 62 months) and 450,000 per month from May 15, 2015 to the completion of delivery of the instant second floor store.

3. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that around January 30, 2010, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to use 15 square meters out of the second floor store of this case free of charge. However, each statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to recognize the above contract fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.