1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents on August 8, 2008 (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff as a project district for the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association approved the establishment of the association on August 19, 201, the management and disposal plan was approved on December 201, 201, and the amendment of the management and disposal plan was approved on July 30, 2015, which was announced around that time by the Defendant. The fact that the Plaintiff owned the land of this case against the Defendant by filing a lawsuit against the Defendant for the implementation of the real estate of this case and the transfer registration procedure on the land of this case, and that the Plaintiff deposited the real estate of this case with the Defendant on July 30, 2015, and that there was no dispute over the purchase price of this case between the parties to this case and the Plaintiff on September 37, 2015.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, since the Defendant indirectly occupied the instant real estate through E from October 1, 2015 to August 23, 2016, which was after the Plaintiff’s deposit, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent for the pertinent period: KRW 32,97,776 [10,542 per day rental fee = KRW 100,542 per day rental fee + (i.e., annual rental fee of KRW 36,697,860 ± 365 days per year) x 328 days] and the delay damages therefrom as unjust enrichment or damages.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each statement of evidence Nos. 5 through 8, the defendant leased the real estate to E without residing in the real estate of this case from October 2002 to the closure of the pleadings. The plaintiff demanded transfer of the real estate of this case to E several times, while the plaintiff demanded transfer of the real estate of this case to E.