1. The Defendant: 5% per annum from March 7, 2016 to August 25, 2017 for each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 11,850,000, and for each of them, 5% per annum from August 7, 2016 to August 26, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 15, 2015, E entered into a lease agreement with the term of F, G, and H and 102 (hereinafter “instant store”) by setting the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 20 million, and the term of lease from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2017.

Since then, E concluded a lease contract with a lessor by changing the lessee to the defendant.

B. On October 22, 2015, E entered into a franchise agreement with the Republic of Korea Co., Ltd. to engage in “I” business at the instant store.

However, on October 29, 2015, E reported the business of operating “I” at the instant store under the name of the Defendant rather than its own name, and completed the business registration under the name of the Defendant on October 30, 2015.

C. Although the Defendant alleged that the contract for interior works with the Defendant for interior works on the instant store was concluded for interior works in the amount of KRW 49.6 million between E and the construction amount, it is not sufficient to recognize the Defendant’s assertion only with the statement of KRW 2,000,000, and it is not clear whether the contract for construction works was made verbally and the Defendant agreed with E is the construction amount.

On February 9, 2016, the preparation for commencement of the business, such as the conclusion of the contract, died.

(The plaintiffs, who are children, jointly inherited) D.

In order to acquire and operate the instant store after the death of E, the Defendant entered into a franchise agreement with Korea Co., Ltd. for the business of “I” on March 7, 2016, and operates “I” at the instant store.

[Ground of recognition] Gap 1, 2, 5, 6 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 to 4, witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the Defendant’s breach of duty to return unjust enrichment, the Defendant acquired and operated the instant store after the death of E, thereby gaining benefit equivalent to the cost invested in the instant store prior to the death of E. E.