1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 56,463,343 as well as to the plaintiff on March 2016.

The Plaintiff, on the ground that the Defendant had delayed the delivery date of the instant real estate at the Defendant’s request while purchasing the instant real estate from the Defendant, but the Defendant did not timely deliver the instant real estate, sought compensation for damages arising from the delay in the delivery of the instant real estate, and restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent gained by the Defendant’s continued possession and use of the instant real estate without timely delivery.

The court of the first instance dismissed all the claims for damages arising from the plaintiff's delay of performance, and accepted all the claims for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

On this issue, both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.

In relation to the claim for damages caused by delay in the performance, the plaintiff specifically emphasized the real estate brokerage commission and the cost of relocating a factory incurred at the time of concluding the third lease contract, and argued that the defendant is liable for damages. The defendant added the argument that he paid part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment and set-off.

Basic facts are stated in this part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The court of the first instance recognized that the defendant is liable for damages caused by delay of performance, while the court of the first instance rejected all of the plaintiff's claims on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge losses, and the remainder falls under special damages, and there is no evidence to recognize that the defendant knew or could have known the circumstances related to the occurrence of damages alleged by the plaintiff.

This Court decides, as seen below, that only the portion of damages incurred when concluding a third lease agreement is different from the court of first instance, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claims are.