1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with the real estate listed in the attached list.

1. In the first instance court’s request for extradition of the instant real estate, from April 2017 to June 201 of the same year, the Plaintiff filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 18,000,000 to KRW 12,000,000 to KRW 6,00,000 to KRW 18,00,00,000 to the outstanding lease deposit, and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment from July 18, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate. The first instance court partly accepted the claim for delivery of the instant real estate and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the instant lease deposit, and dismissed the claim for reimbursement of unjust enrichment.

With respect to this, the Defendant appealed to the entire portion against which the Plaintiff lost, and the incidental appeal was filed against the claim for extradition of the pertinent real estate that was partially lost by the Plaintiff, and against the delayed payment of KRW 12,000,000, and damages for delay for three months from April 2017 to June 201 of the same year.

Therefore, the subject of this Court’s adjudication is limited to the claim for extradition of the instant real estate, the claim for delayed payment of KRW 12,000,000 and delayed payment of KRW 12,000 from April to June of the same year, and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 4,00,000 per month from July 18, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate.

2. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is the same as that of the second to third to seventeen (17) of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the text of Article 4

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 9 and all pleadings as to the duty to deliver the instant real estate, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to automatically terminate the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) where the plaintiff and the defendant did not pay to the plaintiff KRW 90,000,000, which was not paid until June 18, 2017, or where the defendant did not delay for three months from January 18, 2017. The defendant set forth an agreement to automatically terminate the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”).