1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 9, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant on the condition that deposit amount is KRW 210 million, and the term of lease is set from March 9, 2012 to March 8, 2014, with respect to the Goyang-gu E apartment 716-dong 405 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant apartment agreement”).

B. On April 2, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the rejection of renewal one month prior to the expiration of the lease term of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the delivery of the instant apartment (Seoul District Court High Court 2014Kadan11355). On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff received the judgment that “the Defendant would deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff at the same time with the payment of KRW 210 million from the Plaintiff,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 5, 2015.

C. On March 6, 2015, the Defendant received the order of lease on the instant apartment (Seoul High Court Decision 2015Kaman222) and completed the registration of the lease deposit amount of KRW 210 million on the ground of the order.

On March 28, 2015, the Defendant, as a director of the instant apartment on the same day, delivered the key to the said apartment to the Plaintiff on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 2 through 4 and 8's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant continued to possess the apartment of this case despite the termination of the lease contract of this case, and illegally benefits the amount equivalent to the legal interest amount of KRW 70 million, which is the difference between the deposit price of the above apartment of KRW 280 million and the deposit price of KRW 210 million under the lease contract of this case, without any legal grounds.

Therefore, for the above 70 million won to the plaintiff, the defendant is interest equivalent to 5% per annum under the Civil Act for one year. 3,500.