1. The appeal filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the claim for the withdrawal that was added as the preliminary counterclaim at the trial.

1. The reasons in this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except the following parts to be found or added, and those to be determined additionally.

It shall be quoted pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The details of the lessee’s lease term “101” in the 4th [Attachment 1] part of the 4th [Attachment 1] part of the lessee’s lease term “previous lessee and the present existence” are deemed to read “previous lessee (after leaving the lease, February 25, 2013).”

The term “three stories” in the 4th [Attachment 1] lessee’s lease term “from January 24, 2011 to the present existence” means “from January 24, 2011 to April 22, 2013 (the Defendant’s occupancy).”

Fourth, the Court's "Seoul Western District Court" is regarded as "Seoul Western District Court."

The second 9th " December 23, 2012" is regarded as " December 23, 2012".

The court's "this court" is referred to as the "court of the first instance" between the sixth fifteenth and the sixthth.

The first instance judgment shall be added in the front of the 6th 19th Ma of Witnesses.

(1) The defendant shall pay compensation from the first to the nine first (9) [1] part of the plaintiff's assertion shall be described as follows.

1. The Defendant received and held the lease deposit amount of KRW 52 million in total from the lessee G of the instant building 202,000,000,000 from the lessee of the instant building 2,000,000 from K.

The defendant shall return to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment the amount of KRW 26 million which corresponds to 1/2 of that amount.

② The Defendant’s 3rd floor lessee M and N of the instant building amounting to KRW 19.9 million out of the total rent of KRW 19.9 million, 9.5 million, shall be returned to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

③ The Defendant’s act of renting the instant building without the Plaintiff’s consent constitutes a tort that infringes on the Plaintiff’s right to use the instant building.

The Defendant is equivalent to the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the Plaintiff’s share among the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s rent of the instant building.