1. The defendant shall receive KRW 2,350,00 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, shall be underground among the real estate listed in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant to lease the instant leased portion of KRW 15 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, and the period from August 10, 2015 to August 9, 2017.

B. On September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to KRW 11.50,000 on the rent from September 1, 2015, instead of paying KRW 3.55 million directly to D.

C. On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the contract would not be renewed by content-certified mail.

The defendant did not pay 10,2650,000 won during the above term of lease.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the above facts, the lease of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period on August 9, 2017, and the defendant is obligated to return 2.35 million won remaining from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time. (2) In addition, the plaintiff continues to use the leased portion after the termination of the lease, and the plaintiff is responsible for the failure of the defendant to pay the leased portion. Thus, the defendant must return unjust enrichment of the amount equivalent to 1.5 million won per month including cleaning expenses until the delivery of the leased portion to the plaintiff.

However, even after the termination of the lease, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant gains profit from the leased part of this case according to its original purpose, and thus, it cannot be said that the Defendant obtained any benefit.

3 The plaintiff also asserts that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 1.5 million per month since the defendant terminated the electric utility use contract on October 10, 2017 and neglected the defendant's property to increase the plaintiff's losses.

However, since the defendant's right of defense of simultaneous performance can be seen as exercising the right of defense against the repayment of the remaining deposit, the defendant's possession cannot be regarded as illegal possession.

(b).