1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall attached to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

1. Facts of premise;

A. D was operating “E” (the trade name was changed to F on September 9, 2004) at the instant store owned by it, and was in excess of the Defendant who had been an employee on April 1, 1989, and the Defendant has been operating until now.

B. D’s death on June 8, 2007, and the Plaintiff’s mother G on February 17, 2009, when G died on March 1, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the above stores on June 8, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 and 9 (including above number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant refused to pay the monthly rent by denying that the instant store was leased and used by the Defendant, and accordingly, he/she sought payment of KRW 5,400,000, which is part of the amount equivalent to the said store’s delivery and unpaid monthly rent ( KRW 300,000 per month x December 1, 2015 x December 18, 2016).

B. First, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is understood as seeking delivery of the above store, unpaid rent, and unjust enrichment due to the termination of the lease due to the unpaid rent under the lease agreement, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the existence of the lease is without merit, given that the Plaintiff’s assertion on the existence of the lease is difficult to believe it in light of the relationship with the Plaintiff, its memory, and the time, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above lease. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise of the existence of the lease is groundless.

C. Next, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was selected as part of the exclusion of interference based on ownership and the claim for the return of unjust enrichment from possession, the Plaintiff, a possessor who acquired prescription, cannot claim a transfer of ownership and a claim for return of unjust enrichment. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot claim a return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant, a possessor who acquired prescription.