1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the 7th floor building located in Busan-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “instant building”). On April 21, 2010, the Defendant was awarded a successful bid for 14 out of the 1st floor, 7th floor, and 20 floors through 6th floor of the instant building in the voluntary auction procedure for the instant building.

B. On January 11, 2011, the Plaintiff received KRW 26.6 million from the Defendant as a director’s expense and house-based compensation, and delivered the auction portion to the second to the sixth floor of the instant building. However, the Plaintiff refused to deliver it while exercising a lien, etc. on the first to the seventh floor of the instant building without any ground.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, as the representative director, against D, seeking the delivery of the first and seventh floor of the instant building and the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent (Seoul District Court Decision 2010Kadan24338). The Defendant paid KRW 20 million to D Co., Ltd. on May 24, 201 and received delivery from D of the first and seventh floor of the instant building in accordance with the instant court’s conciliation order as of May 4, 2011.

On May 24, 201, the Plaintiff and D’s representative director confirmed that delivery to the Defendant of the first and seventh floor of the instant building was completed (Evidence No. 3).

The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on June 30, 201, on the ground that the Defendant: (a) stolen the signboard, 4, wheel chairs, 2 carpets, 1, 5, 5, 1, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, and 2, 5,000 won of the management expenses to be delivered to the Plaintiff (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant product”); and (b) applied for larceny, etc. on the part of the Plaintiff.

E. On November 29, 201, the Busan District Prosecutors’ Office has no suspicion on the ground that there is insufficient evidence regarding the Defendant’s charge of larceny and embezzlement.