1. The judgment of the first instance, including any claim extended at the trial and any ancillary claim added thereto, is as follows.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4:

The registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 1, 1989 in the name of May 1, 1989 (the parent-child of the plaintiff and the defendant), the plaintiff and the defendant three persons, respectively, with respect to the land of 1/3 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, 1,243.1 square meters (hereinafter "the land of this case"), and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 8, 1997 with respect to the land of this case under the name of D on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 8, 197.

(hereinafter referred to as "land and buildings in this case") when a building is combined with the above land and buildings.

The Defendant leased the instant land and buildings to E on April 1, 1999 with the consent of the Plaintiff and D (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) by setting the deposit amount of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 6 million, and the lease period of KRW 5 million (hereinafter “instant lease”). Around that time, the Defendant received KRW 100 million from E.

After that, the Defendant agreed with E to increase the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million on November 26, 2004 and KRW 8 million on the monthly rent, and around that time, received additional lease deposit of KRW 100 million from E, and renewed the lease contract under the same condition on November 26, 2009.

(However, in the lease agreement dated November 26, 2004 and November 26, 2009, the defendant stated as the lessor's representative, and the seal of the defendant affixed thereto; hereinafter the above increased and renewed lease agreement also refers to all of the above increased and renewed lease agreement as "the instant lease agreement"). The summary of the party's assertion 2.

A. (1) In the first place of the Plaintiff, the Defendant received a rent from E in accordance with the instant lease agreement and did not distribute it as co-owned shares and consumed it at will. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the portion equivalent to co-owned shares of the instant land out of the rent that the Defendant received. The Defendant is obligated to return