All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be the expenses for appeal.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. On the premise that the instant lease contract was terminated around the first instance court, the Plaintiffs filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of part of the instant land which is the object of the said lease without permission, and filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment for the agreed amount paid under the said agreement on the premise that the instant agreement was reversed, and filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment for the payment of rent and the claim for return of unjust enrichment for the said agreed amount under the premise that the said lease is in force in advance.

As a counterclaim claim, the Defendant sought payment of the unpaid amount out of the agreed amount under the premise that the agreement in this case continues to exist effectively, and at the same time sought the return of the lease deposit under the premise that the lease contract in this case was terminated.

B. The court of first instance affirmed only the Plaintiffs’ claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the cancellation of the instant lease agreement among the primary principal claim, and dismissed the remainder of the principal claim (no determination was made regarding the preliminary claim), and rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the claim by citing only the claim for payment due to the agreed amount among the Defendant’s counterclaims.

Accordingly, only the Defendant filed an appeal regarding the part against the Defendant among the principal claim. Accordingly, among the part on the principal claim of the judgment of the first instance, the part on which to claim the return of agreed amount and the part on the counterclaim was already finalized since the parties did not file an appeal.

Therefore, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent on the premise that the lease contract of this case was terminated, among the main part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the claim for rent based on the lease contract of this case for the conjunctive claimant.

2. The facts of the basis.