1. The defendant shall pay KRW 3,941,917 to the plaintiff.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

B. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff, among the foregoing real estate, leased KRW 1.1 million monthly rent to E as a warehouse of 268.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) at one story of the Ddong general steel structure, sand site location panel, and one story. E installed each corporeal movable property listed in the separate auction list, which is machinery for manufacturing hand-out factoring in the instant warehouse, in the instant warehouse, and used the instant warehouse as a manufacturing factory.

C. On December 28, 2017, the Defendant was awarded the instant machine bid in the F Ccorporeal Property Auction Procedure with the Sungwon District Court, Sungnam District Court.

The Defendant continued to keep the instant machinery in the warehouse without entering into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, and sold it to C on April 15, 2018 at KRW 20.5 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 2 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The fact that the Defendant occupied and used the warehouse of this case owned by the Plaintiff from December 28, 2017 to April 15, 2018, which was the date of sale of the instant machinery from December 28, 2017, which was the date of sale of the instant machinery, without any legal cause is as seen earlier, and the amount of profit from the possession and use of the instant real estate shall be the amount equivalent to the rent in ordinary case. The fact that the monthly rent of the instant real estate was 1,100,00 as seen earlier is the same. As such, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of storage fees of KRW 4,50,000 and the rent calculated as KRW 60,00 per day for three months, but the Plaintiff did not submit evidence to acknowledge the agreement to pay storage fees, and it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the rent of the instant real estate exceeds KRW 1,100,000 per month that was paid from E, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

On the other hand, the defendant alleged that E paid rent to the plaintiff while using the instant machinery during the above period. However, the defendant submitted it to the defendant.