1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 13, 1994, on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. On March 7, 2011, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor entered into a housing lease agreement between the Defendant and the instant apartment as the lease deposit amount of KRW 220 million and the lease term of the instant apartment from April 12, 201 to April 11, 2013. The Defendant paid the lease deposit and resided in the instant apartment upon delivery.

C. On September 30, 1981, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor were legally married couple who completed a marriage report, and was married with one male and female, and the Plaintiff did not pay child support for the period of 17 years after wintering in 2000. The Defendant’s Intervenor leased the instant apartment and paid the lease deposit to the Defendant or paid the lease deposit to the Defendant for child support, etc.

On April 7, 2016, the Intervenor submitted to the Seoul Family Court a complaint claiming divorce, consolation money, division of property, and child support against the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment that the plaintiff granted the right of representation to rent the apartment in this case to the defendant joining the defendant, and the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment in this case to the plaintiff who is the owner and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

Considering the fact that there was no objection against the lease of the apartment in this case by the Intervenor joining the Defendant, the Plaintiff is deemed to have entrusted the Defendant with the authority to use and profit from the apartment in this case, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is dissatisfied with this, in view of the fact that there was no objection against the lease of the apartment in this case.