1. The Defendant’s interest rate of KRW 113,516,526 and KRW 99,050,000 among the Plaintiff shall be from September 10, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 7, 2012, the Plaintiff is a trustee in bankruptcy of A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) who was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court.

[Seoul Central District Court 2012Hau150, 2008 hap99]. (b)

On March 29, 2010, the non-party company leased Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Apartment No. 2501 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the Defendant by setting the lease period of KRW 3,50,000 per month (the second day of each month and the 12% interest per annum) from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 201.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

After the expiration of the lease term, the Defendant continued to live in the instant apartment even after the expiration of the lease term, and thereafter, the auction procedure regarding the said apartment was in progress, and was awarded a successful bid on September 10, 2013 by the CELK Company.

(Seoul Central District Court E). d.

The defendant did not pay the rent from May 201.

From May 1, 2011 to September 9, 2013, which was before the Plaintiff lost ownership of the apartment of this case from May 1, 2011, the rent in arrears and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in arrears is KRW 9,50,000, and damages for delay are KRW 14,46,526.

(Specific Details are as stated in the “Account Statement of Rent and Interest”). [Based on Recognition], without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (including serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 10, 2013 to the date of full payment as to KRW 113,516,526 (such as delayed rent, KRW 9,9050,000,000) and KRW 99,050,000 among them.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Judgment 1 on the primary argument is that the Defendant did not lease the apartment of this case from the non-party company for free use, and thus, did not have the obligation to pay rent. 2) The evidence before the judgment is rendered.