1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 26, 2002, with respect to the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office Officetel D (hereinafter “the instant officetel”), the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground that the ownership preservation registration was completed in the Plaintiff’s name in the name of 4/6 shares, e/F shares, and 1/6 shares, respectively, and on September 10, 2008, G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the actual name is recovered.

On October 28, 2016, the ownership of the remainder of the Plaintiff was changed due to auction on August 18, 2016.

B. On June 16, 2001, prior to the completion of the registration to preserve the above ownership of the instant officetel, the Defendant leased the said officetel to 40 million won and resided therein.

(c)

The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on July 13, 2006 by Seoul Eastern District Court 2006 Gohap 4531 to claim the return of the lease deposit, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 8, 2006 upon receiving a favorable judgment with the purport that "the plaintiff shall pay 40 million won to the defendant" (hereinafter "prior lawsuit").

On September 4, 2018, the defendant, among the claims to return the above 40 million won to the plaintiff, 10 million won and 30 million won to G on the same day.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, 9 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff was the 1/2 share holder of the instant officetel, and there is no way to conclude a lease agreement with the Defendant, and there is no way to receive the lease deposit from the Defendant.

As such, the Defendant has occupied and used the instant officetel without permission between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff without entering into a lease agreement. As such, the Defendant gains unjust profits to the Plaintiff, and thus, from August 15, 201 to August 17, 201, the Plaintiff lost its ownership to the instant officetel from August 17, 2016, KRW 30,049,315, an amount equivalent to the rent for the period from August 17, 201, when the Plaintiff lost its ownership.