1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. In accordance with the expansion of the purport of the claim by this Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2004, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to the Defendant on the condition that the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant real estate was renewed.

B. Around April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with regard to the instant real estate (3 years from April 1, 2013, where the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the Defendant), deposit amount of KRW 80 million, and monthly rent of KRW 600,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. On February 1, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail that the instant lease agreement will not be renewed any longer.

The defendant has occupied the real estate of this case until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination as to the claim for the surrender of real estate, the instant lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated as of March 31, 2016 (the Defendant asserted that the period from April 16, 2013, which was the date of the formation of the instant lease agreement, was the expiration date of the lease agreement, and April 15, 2016, which was 36 months elapsed since April 16, 2016, which was the date of the formation of the instant lease agreement, was the same, but the period already expired as at the date of the closing of argument in this case

B. The Plaintiff’s determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent is based on the Defendant’s possession, use, and profit-making of the instant real estate up to the date. On January 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,200,000 to the Plaintiff (on November 1, 2016 and December 2016) as the rent for the instant real estate. However, from November 2016 after the termination of the instant lease contract, it is equivalent to KRW 1,50,000 as the monthly rent for the instant real estate from November 2016, which was the date of termination of the instant lease contract. As such, the Defendant: (i) KRW 1,800,000 (= KRW 1,50,000) to the Plaintiff; (ii) KRW 2-60,000,000 x 2) and January 1, 2017.