A. On March 16, 2007, the Defendant agreed to lease the clater for the main use produced by the Clinte Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff. On March 2, 2009, the Defendant supplied the clinte 9,350 clinter by March 2, 2009, and the Plaintiff, with the consent of the Defendant, sublet the catte to the Clintecom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Clincom”), and the cattecom runs the business of installing and receiving usage fees from the catte store and the catte store located in the Elart store (hereinafter “Emp, etc.”).

B. After that, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and CNcom for the cancellation of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff sold 567 out of the Hydropter to the chain store without the Defendant’s consent, and against the Plaintiff and CNcom, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the time of delivery and delivery of the Hydropter as 201Kahap1095.

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

In the previous litigation case, the above court held on July 25, 2012 to the defendant of each party (the plaintiff of the previous litigation case) who "1. The plaintiff (the defendant of the previous litigation case) and the defendant of each party (the plaintiff of the previous litigation case);

A. At the same time, the Plaintiff received KRW 252,763,769 from the Defendant and delivered the instant pen (hereinafter “instant pen”) 8,751;

B. From June 1, 2012 to the date of the completion of delivery of the instant land, a judgment was rendered with a view to 35,004,000 won per month, and the said judgment was finalized on August 18, 2012.

hereinafter referred to as "previous judgment on a case"

(i) [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 7, 9-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion has become final and conclusive in the previous litigation case.