1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. From March 15, 2015, the above buildings are located.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 15, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the instant building, which is a commercial building, to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 50,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,50,000, and KRW 24 months from the same date as the lease period, until December 14, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant lease”), and the instant lease was implicitly renewed after the expiration of the said period.

B. On September 11, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the term of lease of the instant lease which was implicitly renewed expires on December 14, 2014, and that the Plaintiff did not intend to extend it.

On September 23, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff, demanded the Plaintiff to renew the lease of this case.

C. The Defendant paid the amount equivalent to the above rent to the Plaintiff by March 14, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to a claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the transfer of a building and rent

A. According to the above facts, the lease of this case terminated on December 14, 2014, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff, and return unjust enrichment calculated by the rate of KRW 1,500,000 per month, which is equivalent to the rent from March 15, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserted that the instant lease was renewed in accordance with Articles 2(3) and 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, as the Defendant demanded the renewal of the instant lease to the Plaintiff on September 23, 2014. 2) As indicated in the relevant Act and subordinate statutes.

3. Articles 2(3) and 10(1) of the new Act apply from “a lease concluded or renewed for the first time after the enforcement of the new Act” under Article 2 of the Addenda to the new Act. Since the instant lease is not a lease concluded or renewed for the first time after the enforcement of the new Act, the Defendant is the proviso to Article 2(3) of the new Act and Article 10(1) of the new Act.