The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s bona fide acquisition assertion on the ground that the Defendant was negligent on the ground that it was not aware that D had no ownership or other right to dispose of the leased object of this case.

Among the grounds for the judgment of the court below, it is not reasonable in that the part under the premise that the defendant implemented a three-party lease agreement with D or C even before the conclusion of the second lease agreement was implemented after the conclusion of the second lease agreement.

However, in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on whether there was negligence as an element for bona fide acquisition, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The above mistake does not affect the judgment.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court: (a) determined that the Defendant occupied and used the instant leased object owned by the Plaintiff, thereby causing damage equivalent to the Plaintiff’s profit from the use of the instant leased object; and (b) that the Plaintiff is obligated to refund the amount equivalent to the lease fee, which is anticipated to be ordinarily recoverable from the instant leased object; and (c) acknowledged the amount equivalent to 50% of the amount claimed by the Plaintiff within the scope of return of unjust enrichment within the percentage of 65.1% of the total amount of the lease fee incurred from July 22, 2013 to October 22, 2014, the filing date of the instant lease, which was the date of the instant lawsuit, from the date of the instant lawsuit, to the date of the instant lease agreement.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of unjust enrichment and the scope of return of unjust enrichment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal

Supreme Court Decision 2005Da55121 Decided December 7, 2006 and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da10323 Decided February 28, 2008