1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. As from May 2, 2015, the delivery of the said real estate.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 15, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and leased the instant real estate to the Defendant from that time.

B. On May 1, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a new lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 7.5 million and the rent amount of KRW 1.7 million per month (payment on May 30, 201) and the lease period by May 1, 2014. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed and its lease period was extended to May 1, 2015.

C. On February 26, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail containing an expression of intent to refuse the renewal of the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant received the said mail around that time.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease contract was terminated on May 1, 2015 with the expiration of the lease term.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff and pay the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 1.7 million per month from May 2, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the above real estate.

The Plaintiff sought payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 2.7 million per month from May 2, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the rent equivalent to the instant real estate after May 2, 2015 exceeds the rent stipulated in the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on the portion exceeding the recognized scope is without merit.

B. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that on July 31, 2015, the defendant deposited the amount equivalent to the rent for three months with the plaintiff as the principal deposit. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above is not the defendant.