2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. From July 30, 2002 to July 20, 2014, Plaintiff A agreed to entrust the Defendant with the lease of 92.3 square meters in total size of the Plaintiffs’ stores and receive KRW 40,000 per ordinary month from the Defendant during each of the above periods, when Plaintiff A owned 270.32 square meters in the 1,649.98 square meters in the 2nd floor store in Seongbuk-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant commercial building”); and Plaintiff B, from January 2004 to March 8, 2009, in the 34.46 square meters in the said 2nd floor store (hereinafter “Plaintiffs store”).

B. However, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the plaintiffs, since he leased 8.3 square meters among the plaintiffs' stores 92.3 square meters, and the amount equivalent to the rent calculated as follows is not paid to the plaintiffs.

1) Of August 3, 200 = The claimed amount of Plaintiff A = 31,840,200 won = the relevant horizontal number of Plaintiff A 7.35 square meters x 9,800 won per day x the amount claimed by Plaintiff B from August 25, 2005 to July 20, 2014) 1,487,370 won = the relevant horizontal number of Plaintiff B 0.93 square meters x 1,153 won x 1,290 days from August 25, 2005 to March 8, 2009.

2. According to the purport of Gap's evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments, it can be acknowledged that the defendant prepared a contract with the contents that the plaintiff leases 84 square meters among the plaintiffs' stores to E on October 30, 2003 to 40,000 won per month, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant made unjust enrichment by the means of leasing 92.3 square meters to the plaintiffs' stores and paying 84 square meters to the plaintiffs on October 30, 2003. Since there is no other evidence to support this, the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 14, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant leased the plaintiffs' store to a third party from January 2004 to February 201, 201, but did not pay rent to the plaintiffs and sought payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent against the defendant.