2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

가. 피고(☞ 임대인)를 대리한 C과 원고(☞ 임차인) 사이에 2014. 10. 1.에 이어 2016. 6. 30. 별지에 나오는 2장의 계약서(편의상 그중 각각의 첫째 쪽과 마지막 쪽만 첨부하고, 이하 거기에 표시된 법률행위를 ‘이 사건 임대차계약’이라고 한다)가 거듭 작성된 다음, 이에 따라 원고가 그 임대차목적물(이하 편의상 ‘이 사건 부동산’이라고 한다)에서 그 동안 카센터를 줄곧 운영한 사실에 관하여 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없는 이 사건에서, 원고는 이 사건 청구원인으로 다음과 같이 주장하면서, 피고를 상대로 부당이득금 34,864,800원의 반환을 구한다.

(1) Although it was impossible for the Defendant to newly build or expand a car center on the land adjoining to the instant real estate, it is false as if it were possible to do so, the Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement that was impossible to achieve the objective between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

(2) Although the Defendant should have cooperation with the Plaintiff to properly use the above site, the Defendant failed to perform its duty of cooperation, and the instant lease agreement was legally rescinded due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of such duty.

(3) Ultimately, since the Plaintiff failed to achieve the purpose of the contract as to the above site, the Defendant obtained property benefits equivalent to the portion of the rent out of the rent under the instant lease agreement without any legal ground, and thus, is obligated to return the unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

B. This Court does not accept all the Plaintiff’s respective arguments on the following grounds.

(1) First, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant belonged to the Plaintiff at the time of concluding the instant lease agreement.

(2) The Ka Center up to the above part of the site.