1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to the instant case is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except where the plaintiff added the judgment identical to that of the second instance judgment as to the allegations made by the court of this case. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. The Plaintiff asserts that: (a) the Defendant’s imposition of the instant indemnity on the Plaintiff in the relevant case [the Changwon District Court Decision 2013Da8185, Changwon District Court 2015Na30460, Changwon District Court 2015Na1561, Supreme Court 2015Da23171, Supreme Court 2015Da231771, and 2015Da231788 (Counterclaim)] constitutes double imposition, despite having accepted the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the possession and use of the instant building.

According to Eul evidence No. 3, in the related case, the defendant claimed against the plaintiff the rent amounting to August 11, 2008 excluding the period during which the plaintiff paid the rent from August 11, 2007 to August 10, 2010, and the late payment charge corresponding to the above rent amounting to 30,430,184 won [based on calculation] ① from August 11, 2008 to August 10, 201, the delivery of the building of this case and the rent amounting to 205, ② from August 10, 2010, and the late payment charge amounting to 30,50,500 won and the late payment charge amounting to 15% per annum, ② from August 11, 2007 to 205, the total rent amounting to 35,360,950 won and the late payment charge amounting to 205,294,201,295.

However, the disposition of this case from the date following the expiration of the above loan period.