1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) order the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. From March 1, 2014, the above-mentioned A

subsection (b).

1. Basic facts

A. From February 2010, the Defendant leased the building indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Plaintiff and operated the restaurant in the instant building.

B. On January 7, 2010, the Defendant prepared a letter stating that “I, in leasing the first floor of the Plaintiff’s building, I would like to pay you a sum of KRW 4.2 million per month due to the shortage of lease deposit at the end of each month as interest payment” (hereinafter “each letter of this case”) and deliver it to the Plaintiff.

C. On February 29, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract with the Defendant for a deposit of KRW 150 million with respect to the instant building, KRW 3.5 million in rent (payment on February 29, 2013, KRW 3.8 million from February 28, 2013), and the term of existence from February 29, 2012 to February 28, 2014 (hereinafter “lease agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) According to the determination on the cause of the claim (1) In light of the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated on February 28, 2014, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to order the Plaintiff to order the instant building and pay the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by the completion date of the specification of the said building.

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 15 million per month until the completion date of the order of the instant building. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the amount of profit from the possession and use of ordinary real estate is the amount equivalent to the rent of the pertinent real estate. The mere fact that a lease request was made on the condition that the amount of profit equivalent to KRW 15 million per month is the amount of rent for the instant building, it cannot be readily concluded that the amount of profit from the possession and use of the instant building reaches the above amount, and it is difficult to conclude that the amount of profit from the possession and use of the instant building reaches the above amount of profit.