1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff served as the representative director of the Defendant Company from September 25, 2003 to July 25, 2008.

B. On April 2004, the Plaintiff received payment in kind from C with the machines listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machines”).

The instant machine is a divers that hangs plastic gambling in the form of a roll (breadth 1400m).

C. On February 6, 2013 and February 25, 2013, Defendant Company sent to the Plaintiff a written document demanding the Plaintiff to immediately remove the instant machine, as there is no container using the instant machine. D.

On the other hand, the defendant company had two plastic post-production machinery around 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Company produced stuffs by July 25, 2008, where the Plaintiff had resigned from the representative director of the Defendant Company, on the ground that there were many requests for the supply of stuffs, and then the Plaintiff changed one of the production machinery exclusively used for the use of plastic plates for criminal purposes.

Since the use of the instant machine is essential in the field of stuffing production and this machine is very excellent, the Defendant Company has continuously used and enjoyed the instant machine after that.

Therefore, from July 26, 2008 to February 6, 2013, the Defendant Company shall return the amount equivalent to the rent for the instant machinery as unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff from July 26, 2008. The Plaintiff shall return the amount equivalent to the rent for the instant machinery from July 26, 2008 (the amount equivalent to the rent from July 26, 2008 to January 25, 2013) and the delay damages therefrom.

B. The Defendant Company alleged that plastic sets were not cut in the form of roll (the preparatory documents dated April 8, 2013) or that plastic plates were produced only in the form of plate (the preparatory documents dated April 29, 2013) and asserted that the Defendant Company was in the form of plate (the preparatory documents dated April 29, 2013), and the Plaintiff.