1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. There has been the division of D 100 m2, E 263 m2, F 263 m2, G 263 m22 in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, C 1,154 m2.

N 251 square meters was divided before H et al. registration.

나. 분할 전 위 C 토지에 관하여 1978. 3. 3. H, I 각 1/2 지분 등기(1978. 2. 28. 매매) 1978. 7. 10. I 지분⇒ H(1978. 3. 29. 매매) 1994. 5. 13. H 지분(640/1,154)⇒ 원고(1994. 5. 12. 증여) 1994. 5. 13. H 지분(170/1,154)⇒ J(1994. 5. 12. 증여) 2003. 3. 6. H 지분(344/1,154)⇒ B(94/1,154), K(62.5/1,154), L(62.5/1,154), J(62.5/1,154), A(62.5/1,154)(2002. 9. 20. 상속) 【인정 근거】 갑 제1호증

2. Judgment of the parties

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, without the Plaintiff’s consent from January 2007 to May 201, 201, the Defendant leased the instant land to Nonparty M, thereby gaining a total of KRW 73,330,000,00 for a rent of KRW 44,621,530 (i.e., KRW 733 million x 7330,000 x 70.5/154) as unjust enrichment.

The defendant asserts that since the ownership of the land of this case is substantially owned by the plaintiff, the use and profit of this case does not constitute unjust enrichment.

B. In light of the facts delineated below, without relation to the registration title, the right to manage and use and benefit from the land of this case was assigned to the Defendant by the Plaintiff or another registered titleholder, in view of the circumstances and timing of acquisition.

rather than that, it is judged that the defendant had been bound to manage the defendant;

The Defendant’s act of leasing the instant land to M does not constitute unjust enrichment to receive rent.

① The shares of I in the instant land have been traded only once a month and transferred to H. In this fact, there is sufficient room to view I as a title trustee as the Defendant’s relative.

② The adjacent O land and C land, other than the instant land, are also in the name H and I as seen earlier.