1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is that the part concerning “11-2 and 11-2” of the judgment of the court of first instance among the three pages is dismissed as “A evidence 1-1,” and the part concerning “C Building Building Price Management Body” of the 1 and 2 following the 3 pages as “C Building Building Building Building Building Business Management Body,” respectively, and the part concerning the argument that the plaintiff specifically emphasized as the grounds for appeal is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of paragraph (2) below, since the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff is specially emphasized as the grounds for appeal is identical to that of the judgment of the court of

2. Judgment on the ground for appeal by the plaintiff

A. The main point of the assertion is that the management body of the commercial building C (hereinafter “the instant commercial building management body”) is not an organization duly formed, and there was no delegation from the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant five-story shop, and thus, the Defendant’s lease contract concluded with the instant management body on January 1, 2013 with the instant five-story shop cannot be a legitimate holder of the right of possession.

As a result, on December 7, 2012, the lease agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the five-story store and underground store of this case was implicitly renewed on December 7, 2013, when the lease term expires.

After all, the defendant continued to operate the "E-Saea" at the store of the fifth floor of this case until April 30, 2016, and issued a receipt as the representative.

Therefore, the Defendant, who occupied the instant fifth floor store and the underground store without any legal ground, shall be the owner thereof. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment amounting to 12,407,950 won with respect to the instant fifth floor store from December 7, 2013 to December 10, 2015, and the delay damages amounting to 10,862,050 won with respect to the instant fifth floor store from December 7, 2013 to December 6, 2017 and the delay damages amounting to 10,862,05 won with respect to the instant underground store and the delay damages amounting to 10,85 won with respect to the unjust enrichment amounting to 10,862,050 won and the delay damages amounting to 235,485 won per month from December 7, 2017 to the date the Defendant’s possession of the instant underground store or the Plaintiff’