1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff, the defendant, and the non-party B are listed in attached Table 1;

2. The building to be entered is owned in proportion to one-third ratio, respectively.

B. Attached “Real Estate Indication”

1. From January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010, the Defendant leased the above building to Dongjin Momomoco World Co., Ltd. during the above period, and the Defendant did not express the details of lease deposit and monthly rent, and did not receive all monthly rent during the lease period from May 26, 2011 to December 26, 2011. (2) The Plaintiff leased the above building as lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million and monthly rent of KRW 23 million to C during the above period. The Defendant was paid KRW 23 million out of the deposit.

However, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C against the Seoul Eastern District Court 201Gadan35471 and won the lawsuit seeking the delivery of the said building. C paid KRW 13.5 million in total as monthly rent for the said period to the account designated by the Defendant.

(3) From October 15, 2012 to October 20, 2014, the Defendant set the above building as KRW 40 million and monthly rent of KRW 3.1 million to D during the above period, and leased the building to D during the above period. (4) From October 21, 2014 to May 31, 2017, the termination date for calculating unjust enrichment sought by the Plaintiff. By the end, the Defendant’s representative director set the above building as KRW 40 million and monthly rent of KRW 3.1 million on behalf of the wife B, and continuously used the above building as a lessee.

As seen later, the plaintiff asserts that, as to the monthly rent of the defendant's D, the non-party F, who was subject to the collection order, only prepared a lease contract in the name of B in order to avoid the collection.

C. Attached “Real Estate Indication”

2. The registered buildings (hereinafter referred to as “instant 201”).