2. On the premise that Defendant B has a debt under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff sought the amount equivalent to the rent and management fee calculated by applying the rate of KRW 14,267,00 per month from January 1, 2015 to the delivery date of the leased real estate. However, there is no proof of assertion as to the effect of the instant lease agreement to Defendant B, who is not a law firm A, and thus, there is no ground for the Plaintiff’s primary claim.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. Article 58 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that "the provisions of the Commercial Act concerning unlimited partnerships shall apply mutatis mutandis to law firms other than those provided for in this Act," and Article 212 of the Commercial Act applied mutatis mutandis thereby provides that "if a company's assets cannot be fully paid its obligations or compulsory execution against company's assets is not effective, each member shall be jointly and severally liable for payment."

B. On November 17, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that “Defendant A Law Firm shall pay to the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 14,267,00 per month from December 10, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate.” Of the above judgment, the part A in the judgment became final and conclusive at that time is significant in this court, and the part A in question delivered the said real estate to the Plaintiff by January 16, 2016, but the law firm did not perform its obligation to pay the said unjust enrichment, there is no dispute between the parties.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, the representative of the law firm, falls under the case where it is impossible to fully pay the debt with the law firm's property or compulsory execution is not effective.