1. The Defendants, among the first floor of the real estate listed in the attached list, shall be classified into Annex 1, Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. Grounds for partial dismissal.

A. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff on the part claiming unjust enrichment equivalent to rent or rent for Defendant C is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C is a lessee of the building indicated in the order. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. Benefits in return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the leased building was benefiting without any legal ground corresponding to the leased portion of the claim for unjust enrichment against Defendant B refers to the substantial benefit. Thus, in a case where, even though the lessee continued to possess the leased building after the lease contract relationship was terminated, it did not obtain substantial benefits due to the lessee’s failure to use or make profit in accordance with the original purpose of the lease contract, even if the lessor suffered loss, the lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment does not exist. The same applies even if the lessee failed to use or make profit from the leased building or the lessee failed to remove his/her facility

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da8554 Decided July 10, 1998). Defendant B, on March 11, 2015, on the day following the day when the lease contract was terminated by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and there is no evidence to prove that Defendant B uses and benefits from the part of the building indicated in the order after March 11, 2015 in accordance with the original purpose of the lease contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion

[Therefore, the rent in arrears from May 16, 2013 to March 10, 2015 is 4,364,285 won [=200,000 won x 23/28), and less than won].