1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended by this court, is modified as follows.

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment regarding the claim for the delivery of the store of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases where the fourth through fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【The part of the building lease contract was completed】 The obligation of the lessee to recover the object and the duty of the lessor to return the lease deposit to the lessor upon the termination of the building lease contract, and the duty of the lessor to return the lease deposit to the lessee simultaneously with the simultaneous performance. According to the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff’s deposit amounting to KRW 1,000,000 with the Seoul Western District Court Decision 1370 on April 10, 2019, and therefore, the Defendant’s defense is groundless.”

B. As to the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to rent, the Plaintiff sought payment of rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to rent calculated at the rate of KRW 330,000 per month from the day following the day when a duplicate of the complaint of this case is served to the Defendant from the day when delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case is completed or the Plaintiff loses ownership.

The facts that the monthly rent is KRW 330,00 (including value-added tax) under the instant lease agreement are as seen earlier, and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent after the termination of the instant lease agreement shall be ratified as KRW 330,000, barring any special circumstances. The fact that the Defendant continues to possess and use the instant store even after the completion of the instant lease agreement on June 1, 2018, and that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 330,000 each month (including value-added tax) to the Plaintiff by February 20, 2019 is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, the Defendant is from February 21, 2019 to the date the delivery of the instant store is completed.