1. The defendant

(a) deliver the real estate listed in annex 1. List;

(b) From November 10, 2014 to A.

subsection (b).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

On October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a commercial lease agreement between C and C, which is KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,600,000, and period of lease from September 1, 2012 to September 1, 2017.

Since January 2014, the Plaintiff decided to reduce the monthly rent to KRW 2,000,000 from January 2014 to July 201.

B. The Defendant is a person who had been working from around 2008 at a restaurant operated by C in the instant real estate.

On November 10, 2014, the Defendant arbitrarily registered the business of “D” in its name with respect to the instant real estate, and currently occupies the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, and return the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 2,00,000 per month, which is the amount equivalent to the instant real estate, from November 10, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate, to unjust enrichment. The Defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for reporting the closure of business as stated in the List No. 2, registered by the Defendant

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that he had been directly engaged in the business of the real estate of this case with the consent of the plaintiff, and that there was a legitimate possessor of the right to possess the real estate of

However, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone entered into a lease agreement on the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant paid the rent to the Plaintiff after its business registration on November 10, 2014, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the Defendant has a legitimate possessory right over the instant real estate, and it is different from this.