1. As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant shall be the plaintiff.

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: "from June 27, 2012 to June 21, 2013," "from June 27, 2012, from June 27, 2012 to June 16, 2012," "from June 27, 2012, from June 27, 2013," "from June 27, 2012, from [1], from June 6 to 10, and from June 6 to 10, from the date of the first instance court's judgment [2], it refers to the entry of the first instance court's judgment, except for each of them. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

[Attachment 1] However, in light of the overall purport of argument in Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Eul evidence No. 17, the plaintiff prepared the lease agreement of this case and allowed the defendant to deposit money in the account of this case by entering the plaintiff's account No. 3 (hereinafter "the account of this case") into the contract of this case. The defendant contacted the defendant to transfer money to the account of this case on November 2, 2012. The plaintiff's bank account was closed and refused to receive it, and the defendant's claim of 2,096,985 won including the sum of the rent of 2,00,000 won and the legal interest thereon from June 25, 2013 to June 2014, 2016 to June 25, 2014 to June 2015 to June 25, 2014.

[Completion 2]

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s rent or unjust enrichment claim corresponding to June 26, 2015 due to the above repayment deposit was extinguished, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 83,00 per month from June 27, 2015 to the above delivery date.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is recognized as above.