A. On March 16, 2007, the Defendant agreed to lease the main cream in our case (hereinafter “Korea case”) produced by the clater Co., Ltd. from March 16, 2007. By March 2, 2009, the Defendant supplied clater 9,350 to our case clater, with the Defendant’s consent, and our case clater sublets to the Plaintiff with the Defendant’s consent, and the Plaintiff was engaged in the business of installing the clater in the clater store and receiving the fee.

B. After that, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rental fees up to the time of delivery and delivery, on the ground that the 567 KNH sold at the chain store store in Korea without the Defendant’s consent. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the termination of the lease contract with the KNH on the ground that the KNH sold at the store store in Korea, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the KNH and the Plaintiff for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rental fees up to the time of delivery and delivery by the KND District Court.

(hereinafter referred to as "previous litigation case"). (c)

In the previous litigation case, the above court against the plaintiff (the plaintiff (the plaintiff in the previous litigation case) and the defendant (the plaintiff in the previous litigation case) on July 25, 2012, respectively;

A. At the same time, our cases receive KRW 252,763,769 from the Defendant, and deliver to the Defendant Chapter 8,751 (hereinafter “the instant pen”);

B. From June 1, 2012 to the date of the completion of delivery of the instant piece of land, a judgment was rendered to the effect that “the amount of money shall be paid at the rate of KRW 35,004,00 per month,” and the said judgment was finalized on August 18, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff did not use and benefit from the instant bill after March 15, 2015, the Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to return unjust enrichment from the final and conclusive judgment of the previous litigation case from April 1, 2015. Thus, the Plaintiff is obliged to return unjust enrichment from the final and conclusive judgment of the said final and conclusive judgment.