1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff A owns each of the stores listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant stores”) from January 29, 199 to February 16, 2012, and from February 17, 2012 to February 17, 2012, each of the stores listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant stores”; hereinafter “each of the instant stores”) as “10 stores,” and the store listed in the separate sheet (2) as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “144 stores”).

B. From around 2000 to October 28, 2013, Defendant C occupied and used each of the instant stores. From around 2000 to October 28, 2013, Defendant D occupied and used the said 110 store from around 200 to October 28, 2013.

C. The Defendants delivered each of the instant stores to Plaintiff B on October 28, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Establishment of obligation of return of unjust enrichment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, Defendant C is obligated to indirectly occupy and use the store No. 110, occupy and use the store No. 144, and Defendant D obtains profits equivalent to the profits from the use of each of the store of this case without any legal grounds by directly occupying and using the store No. 110, and thereby inflict damages equivalent to the same amount on the Plaintiffs, the owner of each of the store of this case. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to return the profits equivalent to the profits from the use of each of the stores of this case to the Plaintiffs, barring special circumstances.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ defense was that F, the father of Defendant C, lent each of the instant stores from the Plaintiff to purchase them from the auction procedure around 1999, and the Plaintiff, the title trustee of each of the instant stores, was not entitled to claim a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the possession, use, and possession of each of the instant stores from the title truster.

According to the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-2, each of them is.