1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid in addition to the following shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2018, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 2970,000 (including value-added tax) and the lease term from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2020 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Article 4 of the instant lease agreement states that “If the lessee’s delayed rent reaches three terms, the lessor may immediately terminate this contract.”

C. On July 28, 2018, the Plaintiff did not pay a rent for at least three months to the Defendant, and thus, the instant lease agreement will be terminated without paying a rent.

‘Post-certified mail’ has sent content-certified mail.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the first instance court dismissed the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment from August 2018 to the date on which delivery is completed. Since the Plaintiff appealed only with respect to part of the claim, the scope of this court’s judgment is limited to the part against which the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract with the Defendant’s delay, and the Defendant thereafter used and profit from the instant building from August 2018 to October 2018. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent for the said three-month period and the delinquent management fee to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination 1) According to the fact that the Defendant did not pay more than three vehicles, the grounds for termination of the instant lease agreement exist, and the Plaintiff sent the content-certified mail on July 28, 2018, which included the purport of termination of the instant lease agreement, and thus, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination against the Defendant. 2) As such, the existence of the obligation to return unjust enrichment exists.