1. On December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 3,225,00 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, from December 24, 2015 to February 24, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants to lease KRW 133.42 square meters on the first floor among the commercial buildings on the second floor of Pyeongtaek-si D, which are co-ownership (each share of 1/2) of the Defendants (hereinafter “instant building”), with the term of KRW 30 million,000,000 per month of rent (Provided, That the lease deposit is KRW 1.4 million per month until February 201, and the term of lease is KRW 20,000,000 per month) and from January 20, 2012 to January 20, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 11 million out of the lease deposit to Defendant B, and KRW 1.9 million to Defendant C, respectively.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendants lost their ownership on June 29, 2015 when the instant building was sold to a third party for a compulsory auction (Yan District Court E, F, and Consolidation).

C. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed and terminated on June 29, 2015.

The defendants' counterclaim and the plaintiff's answer on November 24, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. 1) Both parties' assertions as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the cost of benefits. The plaintiff spent KRW 23.57 million for the internal facility construction cost of the instant building immediately after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, which increased the value of the instant building, and thus constitutes a beneficial expense. Thus, as long as the instant building was sold to a third party by auction, the defendants alleged that the Defendants were benefiting from the same amount without any legal ground. The defendants asserted that the claim for reimbursement of beneficial expense under Article 626(2) of the Civil Act was established, or that it is difficult to deem that the defendants were able to gain any benefit, and that the plaintiff renounced the claim for reimbursement of beneficial expense at the time of the instant lease agreement. 2) The plaintiff's assertion was examined.