1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

Basic Facts

On January 31, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) leased part of the area of a general steel structure neighborhood living facility 154.15 square meters and the above land (hereinafter referred to as “the leased object of this case”) on the Daejeon Seodong-gu D, Daejeon-gu, with the lease deposit of KRW 50 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 2 million; and (c) from March 1, 2009 to February 28, 201, the lease term of which was fixed from March 1, 2009 to February 28, 201; (d) on February 201, the Plaintiff renewed the lease contract by setting the monthly rent of KRW 2.42 million; and (e) the lease term from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff, on August 4, 2014, expressed to C the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of overdue rent, in arrears, at the time when C was in arrears, and the notice of termination reached C around that time.

On April 16, 2015, the Defendant concluded an agreement with C to obtain all rights to the restaurant located on the leased object of this case as security for transfer (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C occupied and used the leased object of this case, and delivered it to the Plaintiff on November 8, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 14 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff's assertion as to the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment by asserting that the plaintiff had been indirectly occupied the leased object of this case as the direct possessor from April 15, 2015, which was after the termination of the lease contract of this case, based on the contract of this case with Eul, etc.

Therefore, the Defendant, in collaboration with C, should return the amount equivalent to the rent from November 8, 2016, which was delivered to the Plaintiff the leased object of this case from the date of commencement of indirect possession, to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

After the termination of the lease agreement of this case, the claim for damages arising from tort C continues to be occupied and used illegally, and the plaintiff has suffered damages equivalent to the rent for the same period.