1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver each building listed in the separate sheet;

B. From July 13, 2018, the above A

subsection (b).

Facts of recognition

A. On February 6, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D, setting the lease deposit amount to KRW 20 million for each building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”), KRW 20 million for rent, and the lease period to KRW 2 million for rent, from February 13, 2013 to February 13, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and around that time, handed over the instant building to D.

B. On December 23, 2013, the Defendant succeeded to the lessee status of the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff consented thereto.

The defendant was handed over the building of this case around that time.

C. From August 3, 2017 to February 9, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract would not be renewed five times.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was terminated on February 13, 2018, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, barring any other special circumstance.

B. Furthermore, if value-added tax is included in health expenses, monthly rent and management expenses under the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “rent, etc.”), there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant paid all rent, etc. to the Plaintiff by July 12, 2018.

Therefore, barring other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 2,310,000 per month from July 13, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building as unjust enrichment.

(In excess of the above recognition scope, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, etc. from January 13, 2018 to February 12, 2018 and the rent, etc. from February 13, 2013 to February 13, 2018 is without merit). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is with merit within the said recognition scope.