A. (1) Determination as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim (1) The instant land and building owned by the Plaintiff A is the ownership of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is running a household manufacturing business from July 2013 to the instant land and building without permission by taking advantage of the ownership of C, D and building (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land and building”).

Even if the Defendant did not directly occupy the instant land and building, the Defendant indirectly occupies the instant land and building as the nominal lender who lent the name of the Defendant to Nonparty E.

Therefore, as a return of unjust enrichment from illegal possession to March 31, 2014, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 21 million in the amount equivalent to the rent from August 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 (i.e., monthly rent of KRW 3 million x 7 months x 8 months, or 7 months from August 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 as requested by the Plaintiff) and KRW 300,000 per month from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

(2) The written evidence No. 2-1, No. 5, and No. 16 are insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant occupied the instant land and building, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(O) According to the witness E’s testimony, the instant land and buildings are deemed to have been occupied by E and engaged in a furniture manufacturing business. In addition, as alleged by the Plaintiff A, the mere fact that the Defendant permitted E, a direct occupant of the instant land and buildings, to externally use the name of the Defendant Company, as the direct occupant of the instant land and buildings, does not hold that the Defendant is indirectly occupying the instant land and buildings, apart from the fact that he/she is liable as the nominal owner of the instant land and buildings under external transaction. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Plaintiff is intended to hold the Defendant liable as the nominal owner of the land and buildings.