1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A’s KRW 20,036,639 as well as 5% per annum from October 8, 2014 to June 4, 2015.

1. On April 1, 2009, the Plaintiff and Defendant A entered into a contract for specialized store operation (hereinafter “instant contract”) that Defendant A operates in compliance with the Plaintiff’s business system, etc. with respect to D miscellaneous gift stores established by the Plaintiff with approval for use within the station from the Korea Railroad Corporation (hereinafter “instant store”).

The contract of this case was renewed and terminated on April 30, 2014.

Defendant A, without the Plaintiff’s consent, lent the instant store to Defendant B from July 2012 to operate the store.

After the expiration of the contract of this case, the Defendants did not deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and the store of this case was delivered to the Plaintiff on October 7, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendants’ duty to compensate for damages

A. The Defendants were liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom, since they illegally occupied the instant store from May 1, 2014 to October 7, 2014.

Defendant A did not directly possess the burial of this case.

Even if it is indirectly occupied by a sub-lease, and regardless of whom the delivery of the store in this case was delayed due to any of the Defendants, the plaintiff cannot be exempted from liability for damages caused by illegal possession.

Defendant B asserted to the effect that his mother possessed the burial of this case since August 2013, but according to the evidence Nos. 6, A, and B Nos. 3 and 1, Defendant B had registered the store business of this case and deposited the store of this case to Defendant A by July 2014, it is reasonable to view that the possessor of the store of this case was Defendant B, and even if the mother of Defendant B actually performed funeral service, Defendant B was the mother of the store of this case.

Even if the mother is the occupation assistant, the mother should be regarded as the occupation assistant.

Damages are assessed against the Plaintiff.