1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment against the Plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) owned a building of 111.1 square meters in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and E large 60.2 square meters in size, and eight-storys in the above land (hereinafter “the instant cartel”), and died on December 21, 2003.

B. On December 19, 2003, before the deceased C’s death mold, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant with 1/2 equity shares (hereinafter “registration of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s franchise was owned by the network C, but the Plaintiff was donated 1/2 shares of the instant franchise by the network C.

The Defendant: (a) occupied and operated the instant telecom; (b) did not settle the Plaintiff, a 1/2 equity right holder of the instant telecom; and (c) did not settle the Plaintiff’s profits.

The Plaintiff seeks that the Defendant return the profits from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2013 for the portion of the instant telecom 1/2 as unjust enrichment.

From January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2013, the sum of profits from the 1/2’s share of the instant cartel conduct is KRW 1,010,522,520. Of them, the sum of the taxes, etc. paid by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff is KRW 82,962,125, and the sum of the taxes, etc. paid by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff is KRW 52,095,50.

Therefore, if the above-mentioned profit deducts the above-mentioned large-paid tax payment and the amount of the previous payment, the amount of unjust enrichment that the defendant would pay to the plaintiff is KRW 875,464,845.

Even if the Plaintiff is not a 1/2 right holder of the instant telecom, the Plaintiff succeeded to 2/9 shares of the instant telecom from the network C, and thus, the Defendant ought to return to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to 2/9 shares of the profits accrued therefrom.

B. The Defendant’s franchise was jointly owned by the network C and F with the property jointly formed by the network C and F, and the network.