2. From August 18, 2011 to February 11, 2012, the lien holder established the obligation to return unjust enrichment (1) from the owner of the leased apartment without the debtor’s consent to return gains to the owner of the leased apartment without the debtor’s permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40684, Sept. 24, 2009). Meanwhile, the possession of the lien holder, which is the requirement for establishing the lien, is irrelevant to the direct possession or indirect possession. However, the lien holder does not have the right to lease the leased apartment without the owner’s consent (see, e.g., Article 324(2) of the Civil Act) and thus, the owner’s right to dispose of the leased apartment without the owner’s permission, and thus, it cannot be asserted that the lease gains were effective against the owner of the leased apartment without the owner’s consent. Accordingly, it cannot be viewed that the Plaintiff’s possession of the leased apartment property cannot be viewed as the Plaintiff’s lawful right to use of the apartment.

On the other hand, Defendant B’s possession of the apartment of this case is justifiable on the ground that the lease contract with Defendant B, the lien holder, exists.