1. The judgment of the court of first instance that lost the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding the revoked portion shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the dispute in this case are as follows. The plaintiff, in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, is identical to the part of the "1. Basic Facts" in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the defendant's change of the "date of the above payment" to the "date of the above payment". Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. (1) Determination as to the cause of the claim (A) since August 2000, the Defendant received at will about KRW 200 million directly from the lessee of the instant commercial building from around KRW 3 million and embezzled it, and violated the lease agreement on the instant commercial building. As such, the Defendant should pay KRW 55 million as compensation for damages, since the Defendant violated the lease agreement on the instant commercial building since it received approximately KRW 200 million directly from the lessee of the instant commercial building for about five years.

(B) The Plaintiff filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment upon termination of the contract with a reconstruction association and the Plaintiff paid the sale price of KRW 5 million (i.e., the lease deposit of KRW 35 million development promotion cost of KRW 14.5 million), and it became final and conclusive that the instant commercial building owned by the Defendant was leased through lottery.

Since the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the lease contract for the commercial building of this case, the defendant is obligated to return the above sale price of KRW 5 million to the plaintiff.

(2) The judgment on the claim for damages due to nonperformance of obligation asserts that the Defendant incurred damages to the Plaintiff by directly receiving the rent of approximately KRW 200 million in total from the lessee of the instant commercial building for about five years, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge this. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2002Ga326424 among the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the Defendant’s receipt of the rent directly from the lessee as above.