1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 2-4, Eul evidence No. 7-9, and Eul evidence No. 7-9, and there are no counter-proofs.

(1) On November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) leased a factory lease relationship between the Plaintiff and new HTT (hereinafter “non-party company”); (b) around November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant factory from December 10, 2014 to December 9, 2016, with the rent of KRW 115,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

(2) However, according to the instant lease agreement, the above lease deposit was paid until February 27, 2015, and the non-party company did not perform its duty to pay the above lease deposit until the above date, and the Plaintiff notified the non-party company of the termination of the instant lease agreement on March 2, 2015, and around that time, the above notification reached the non-party company.

(3) Nevertheless, the non-party company continued to occupy and use the factory of this case with only monthly rent paid until September 30, 2015. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 11.5 million, which is the monthly rent for the contract, from October 1, 2015 to October 4, 2015, with the Suwon District Court Decision No. 2015da103715, and the Plaintiff obtained a favorable judgment on November 4, 2015.

(4) Accordingly, the non-party company appealed to the Suwon District Court No. 2015Na40828, but the appellate court recognized the fact that the non-party company occupies the factory of this case by July 7, 2016, which is the date of closing its argument, and thereby, excluded.