A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person established for the purpose of the commercial lease business, etc., and completed the registration of preservation of ownership by the Suwon District Court No. 65702, Sept. 11, 1993, as to the Suwon District Court No. 201 and No. 206 (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Defendant, from January 10, 2005 to October 10, 2005, occupied and used the pertinent building in the course of operating the so-called “D” in the instant building owned by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 3 and 4 evidence (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The main purport of both claims is that the plaintiff occupies and uses the building of this case without permission, and the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent from January 10, 2005 to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the building of this case, as unjust enrichment. As part of them, he asserts that the plaintiff is entitled to claim payment of KRW 189 million and damages for delay.

On January 8, 2005, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with the Plaintiff Company by setting the deposit amount of KRW 200 million, the lease period from January 10, 2005 to January 10, 2007, and thereafter renewed the lease contract every two years. Thus, the Defendant asserts that he occupied and used the instant building with legitimate right of lease.

B. 1) Determination 1) The fact that the Plaintiff completed registration of preservation of ownership on the instant building on September 11, 1993 and owned until now, and the fact that the Defendant is operating a private house or facility from January 10, 2005 in the instant building owned by the Plaintiff is as seen earlier. However, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established due to the lack of dispute over the leased contract and the Plaintiff’s seal image portion.

The plaintiff defense that the document was forged by using the plaintiff's seal imprint certificate without permission, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

The evidence Nos. 3 to 8, 10 to 16 is written.