1. Defendant who exceeds the following money out of the portion of the claim for return of unjust enrichment in the judgment of the first instance.

Facts of recognition

A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) completed the registration of transfer of ownership on April 17, 2013 with respect to the instant store on the grounds of reversion of trust property as of April 17, 2013. On the same day, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed to the K non-Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K non-Real Estate Trust”) on the grounds of trust as of April 17, 2013.

On February 10, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the instant company (representative C) and the instant store (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with a view to KRW 20 million, KRW 200,000 per month, KRW 30,000 per month (payment on February 30, 2015), and period of lease from February 22, 2015 to two years (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

On February 11, 2015, the Defendant borrowed KRW 18 million from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan”), and paid the instant lease deposit to the instant company. The Defendant occupied the instant store and used it for profit-making according to its use.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff purchased this in the public sale procedure for the instant store and paid the purchase price in full on May 17, 2016.

【The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant shop without permission, and the Defendant refused the Plaintiff’s request for extradition while occupying it without permission. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant shop.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and pay the money calculated by the rate of one million won per month as unjust enrichment from May 17, 2016 to the date of delivery of the instant store from May 17, 2016 to the date of delivery of the Plaintiff’s ownership.

The Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement with C, the actual owner of the instant store, and received the instant loan from the Plaintiff by introducing C in order to pay the lease deposit.

The employees in charge of the Plaintiff’s loan of this case are the loans of this case.