1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,998,00 won with 12% per annum from June 17, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant subparagraph C”) is owned by the Plaintiff who was awarded a successful bid on September 27, 2018.

B. From September 27, 2018 to March 29, 2019, the Defendant occupied the instant subparagraph C.

C. The annual standard rent from September 27, 2018 in the instant subparagraph C is KRW 10,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, unless the defendant proves the source of possessory right, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the profit acquired by possession under subparagraph (c) of this case as unjust enrichment, and since the annual rent under subparagraph (c) of this case is the same as above, the annual rent of KRW 10,000,000 for the possession period is the same as above. Thus, the amount of unjust enrichment for the possession period is calculated based on these factors, the amount of unjust enrichment for the possession period is KRW 5,068,493 (Calculation: 185 days/365 days x 10,000,000), which is claimed by the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion (i.e., the defendant's possession cannot be viewed as non-legal grounds, since he exercised the right of retention by proxy against the non-party D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party Co., Ltd.) who is the lien holder for the instant subparagraph C.

However, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the non-party company has a lien on the sole basis of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

Dol The defendant asserts that the non-party company has a duty to return unjust enrichment because he is merely an agent of the lien and cannot be seen as an independent possessor.

In full view of the evidence No. 1 of this case, it is recognized that the defendant, with the permission of the non-party company, operated a private teaching institute business under this case No. 3 of this case, and prepared a "right of retention agency contract" with the purport that the non-party company occupies the subparagraph C of this case on behalf of the non-party company exercising the right of retention between the non-party company and the non-party